Mark Levin and Dr. John Lott Discuss Biden's Gun Control

On Wednesday's Mark Levin radio show, Dr. John Lott, President of the Crime Prevention Research Center, called in to explain how the gun ban lobby now wants to go after firearm manufacturers and firearm retailers for shooting liability.  Levin said while the administration is attacking manufacturers and dealers,  there is no accountability for George Soros and the likes of similar activist donors electing passive district attorneys that are soft on crime and hard on gun owners and dealers.  The audio of the conversation is below.

VSSA · Mark Levin Talks with Dr. John Lott on Biden's Gun Control

Washington Post Profile of Texas AR-15 Owner

Sunday's Washington Post had this profile of Fabian Rodriguez, a Texas gun owner who just purchased his first AR-15.  Given it is the Post, the article has a few things to quibble with (noted below) but it mostly did not put Rodriquez in a bad light given how vociferously anti-gun the editorial page is on the subject.  There was an inference that people who purchase or own AR-15s are mostly people who support the military but didn't serve, and that owning an AR-15 allows them to connect with that service without serving.  That came from the former ATF agent turned gun control proponent, David Chipman, who now works for the Gabby Giffords gun ban group.  He told the author, Abigail Hauslohner, that owning an AR-15 was a way to "kind of act patriotic without having to do it."

For his part, Rodriquez represented the gun owning community well.  He has been a shooter since he was eight and purchased his first gun when he was 18.  He explained why he wanted an AR-15:

But this is a gun that Rodriguez has wanted for a couple of years now, a gun that he thinks has been unfairly maligned because of a few people’s bad actions, and a gun that he believes is his right to own. He’s here this weekend not because he worries about an imminent ban, but because he just sold his Mustang and finally has the cash.

Rodriguez is among the sprawling population of American gun enthusiasts who own or aspire to own an AR-15, the semiautomatic weapon that the National Rifle Association has designated “America’s rifle.” Some say the weapon can be useful for hunting or home protection. For others, like Rodriguez, the sleek, easy-to-use design and customizable features make the high-powered rifle simply fun to own.

As usual, there were signs that Hauslohner knowledge of firearms is limited, with the description of the AR-15 as "high-powered", and later in the article when she described it as a "a gun that can fire 45 high-velocity rounds per minute, bullets that travel so fast that their shock waves mimic an explosion as they enter a body."

If there is one thing that should give us pause, it is Rodriquez's acceptance of some gun control proposals that give many pro-rights proponents concern.  It is likely he is not the only gun owner willing to give up some of his freedom:

“I’m a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen,” Rodriguez says. “If there was a procedure that said I have to go to a class and learn, I’m going to do it.”

If the government said he needed to produce a character witness, provide access to his Internet search history or submit to a home visit or a rigorous mental-health evaluation, he’d comply.

“If it takes a little more to have it, that’s fine,” he says.

We've all seen the recitation of "poll results" that show a large majority of gun owners, including NRA members (these have to be self identified because the NRA does not sell it's membership list) support background checks.  It's likely because we've all gone through them for over 25 years that is the case.  But, it is also probably true that if you start detailing what is entailed in the various "universal" background check proposals that the numbers would significantly decrease.  I also don't think I should be required to have my home searched or undergo a "rigourous mental-health evaluation" to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Overall however, it is an article worth reading.

Walmart Removing AR-15 Style Rifles from Inventory

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has the story here: 

The AR-15 rifles and other modern sporting rifles were being sold at less than a third of the company's 4,600 U.S. stores. Company spokesman Kory Lundberg said Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will remove the remaining inventory as stores transition from summer to fall merchandise, which should take a week or two to complete.

Lundberg said the decision to remove the weapons was not political and that the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer made the decision earlier this year.

"It's similar to what we do with any product. Being what it is, it gets a little more attention, but it's the same process for any other product," Lundberg said.

While some in the gun ban lobby who push businesses like Wal-Mart to make these decision will probably use this to claim some sort of victory, I would agree that this is probably not political - I've never seen them in the Richmond area stores anyway.  The guns sold in Wal-mart stores in this area are shotguns and .22s.  Maybe a hunting rifle.   And, unlike my favorite locally owned gun store, I don't see people lined up at the counter in the Wal-Mart sporting goods section to buy a firearm.  I figure most serious gun owners are like me, when they are looking to buy a new firearm, they want someone who knows what they are talking about, and that's not usually your average Wal-Mart sporting goods employee.

CNBC's Report on Popularity of AR-15

VSSA received promotional emails from CNBC prior to the airing of last night's premier of "America's Gun - Rise of the AR-15."  We did not promote the program as it's not our job to advertise for CNBC and since we sell ad space on the Blog and the VSSA web site, they were free to buy a banner and have it in the rotation. We have come to expect that most firearm related reports done by the "Big 3" networks is anything but unbiased and figured this would be the same.  Google the name of the program and you will find that was the basic feeling of many in the firearm rights community frequenting message boards and blogs, before the program aired.

Mid-afternoon yesterday, NBC Universal sent out another email addressing the negative perception pre-airing of the program:

We have previously reached out to you regarding the CNBC documentary about the AR-15. Some of the feedback we have seen amongst AR-15 owners and gun enthusiasts is suggesting that we will be choosing a side or going to take a negative look at the AR-15.  

Portraying the AR-15 negatively is not the objective of the documentary and we can reassure all owners and enthusiasts that we aren't choosing a side. Our team wanted to understand the AR-15's immense popularity on both sides of the debate and go beyond the clichés. Please feel free to share this information with your network in addition to this additional clip from the special.

If the program had been completely like the below, it might have been a little easier to believe it was not their objective to give a negative impression of the rifles because this clip goes right to what they said was the point of the program, to understand the popularity of the AR-15:

But then there is also this in the program:



The mainstream media's version of "unbiased" is to reinforce what is generally in the public domain (i.e. the second video) rather than present the other side of the story so the public has a complete picture.  When you have a doctor describing wounds as "battlefield type wounds," that kind of reinforces the sterotype that the AR-15 is a "battlefield weapon" as Obama and Biden inaccurately describe them.

I guess I should be thankful that the segment with the dentist and real estate agent presented the side that the "typical" AR-15 owners are professioanls and not "anti-government tea-party types" but frankly that message gets lost when you then have a segment with the shooting victim and the doctors who treated her.  What do you think was their underlying message? The victim, Farrah Soudani, for her part did not blame the guns, but said it is, stupid people who kill people. She called for "mandatory psychological evaluations" before anyone can purchase a fiream, "especially one with the AR-15's characteristics."

If you did not see last night's airing and are interested in seeing the program for yourself, it will re-air on CNBC on Sunday at 9:00 PM.

Will Today's Senate Judiciary Vote on Feinstein Gun Ban Be the Last?

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote along party lines to advance Senator Diane Feinstein's bill to ban modern sporting rifles but it is possible that it will be the last vote.  The AP notes:

There are 53 Democrats plus two independents who generally side with them. Republicans seem ready to oppose the ban overwhelmingly, and Feinstein can't count on a half-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning states who face re-election next year.

That means that it will likely not muster the 60 votes required to get a vote and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may be happy with that so he can protect his most vulnerable members ahead of the 2014 mid-term election.

The main threat has always been criminalizing private firearm sales.  This is where we must focus our energy in the coming month when Senator Chuck Schumer's bill may come to the floor.

Good Report on Facts About AR-15s

From News 8 WTNH in Connecticut:

Special Report: Firearm Facts -- the AR-15

Obama to Announce Gun Control Plans Wednesday

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets magazines can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The announcement, to be delivered at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.  The White House has invited key lawmakers as well as gun-control advocates to appear at Wednesday’s policy rollout, according to two officials who have been invited to the event.

It makes no difference to Obama that none of the things being proposed would have stopped the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  According to The Hill some legislators doubt Obama's proposals will make it through Congress.  But Obama is undeterred: 

Obama shrugged off the doubts saying, instead, his priority with the proposals is to push for what's necessary.

No, his priority is to take advantage of a perceived crisis and give the gun ban lobby its long laundry list of proposals that it has wanted enacted into law for years.

Is Mark Warner Following Joe Manchin in Walking Back Commits on Gun Bans

Shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia U.S. Senator Mark Warner followed West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin in suggesting he may be open to banning semi-automatic modern sporting rifles (commonly inaccurately called "assault weapons").  This letter forwarded by a VSSA member makes you wonder if he is also now trying to walk back those comments like Senator Manchin since Warner makes no mention of gun bans in the response.

From: "Sen. Mark Warner's Office"
Date: Jan 11, 2013 4:51:50 PM
Subject: Responding to your message
To: ______________

Dear Mr. __________,

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut and your views on gun control.

 

On December 14, 2012, 20 innocent children and six adults lost their lives in one of the worst, most tragic shootings to ever occur in the United States. As a parent of three daughters, this was the ultimate nightmare. Like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings, this tragedy unfolded in what was once regarded as a safe haven free of crime and violence: a school.

 

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I own firearms and I have an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits. It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to have a serious discussion on how to best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable.

 

I believe our discussion should cover many issues. We can start by improving the existing criminal background check system. Currently, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is woefully incomplete, with many states failing to submit available records on persons who may be disqualified from purchasing or possessing firearms. With a more complete background check system, we can keep firearms out of the hands of those who have been deemed unfit to possess them.

 

In addition, we can take common sense measures such as passing the CAMPUS Safety Act (S. 3682), which I introduced last year. That bill would establish a national center for campus public safety within the Department of Justice to serve as a resource center and assist schools and universities in developing campus safety plans and threat assessment tools. We also need to look at changes to our mental health system so we can provide help to those with dangerous mental illnesses before it is too late. There will not be a single solution, but all of these issues and others need to be part of the conversation and I urge you to continue to express your views as we move forward.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.

 

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

Please continue to contact Senator Warner and make your views heard that you oppose any new restrictions on our rights.

Talk of Confiscation: First It Was New York, Now it is Iowa

From the Daily Caller:

In an interview with the Daily Times Herald in Caroll, Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

Muhlbauer, a Democrat from the western Iowa town of Manilla, is a cattleman and farmer. The newspaper reported that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.

“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer told the newspaper during a December 19 audiotaped interview. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.”

Rep. Muhlbauer, I suggest you check out this video.

Just a little note, states are not the only folks talking about confiscation in some form as an option. At the appropriate time, VSSA will have more on that.

Here's Why the Morning Jolt is One of VSSA's Daily Reads

We all saw the media fall all over West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin making disparaging comments about modern sporting rifles, signaling he may be inclined to consider a new ban on both the rifles and on standard capacity magazines.  But have you seen these comments anywhere shared by National Review's Jim Geraghty in this morning's Morning Jolt?

What you may not have heard was what he said on MetroNews Talkline, a local program back in his home state in West Virginia, a few days later:


"I am open to talking about how do we have a better society with less violence and not blame just the gun owner, because if you blame the gun owner, you're blaming me," the Senator said.

Host Hoppy Kercheval asked Senator Manchin if he will support California Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed bill to reinstate the ban on assault weapons. That ban first took effect in 1994 and expired in 2004.

"I'm not supporting a ban on anything. I'm supporting a conversation on everything," Senator Manchin said.

"I can't say 'yes' or 'no' to any of the things because all I've asked for, I want the NRA to tell me why we have any weapon you might want. Is there any grounds or any changes or anything they would like to look at? I don't know. I can't even get a conversation to have responsible people at the table to finally come out with a conclusion."

I didn't think so, since none of those media outlets fawning over Manchin shortly after his original comments reported his "walk back" of those comments.

Biden Promises Anti-Rights Boston Mayor Obama Will Pass Major Gun Control By End of Month

Talk Show host Mark Levin shared this tidbit last night during his show:

Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” Mayor Thomas M. Menino — a leading national gun control advocate — that President Obama will pass sweeping firearms reforms by the end of the month, the mayor said today.

Considering Congress is basically out of town until after inauguration day, nothing is getting through Congress and to Obama's desk by January 31. So, as Weazel Zippers wrote yesterday:

No way Obama’s ramming through major legislation by the end of the month, which leaves only one other option, executive orders.

If you thought we had a firewall in the House of Representatives, you should think again.  As he did with illegal immigration yesterday, Obama is going to go as far as he thinks he can with Executive Orders.

During last year's election gun owners were warned about sentiments like this:

Menino added that the president has “no excuse not to pass strong (gun reform) legislation,” since he is in his last term and doesn’t have to worry about angering pro-gun voters or the National Rifle Association.

Nation's Gun Show Makes News Across the Pond

The UK Daily Mail had this story on the recent Nation's Gun Show which was held in Chantilly, Virginia this past weekend.

While official figures are yet to be confirmed following the event, early reports said increased demand saw many weapons selling for up to double their usual price, while some vendors sold out of products altogether.

Like everywhere else in the country, modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines were some of the first items to sell out according to a story by NBCWashington.com that was referenced in the Mail Online story.

Talk of Confiscation

Since the Sandy Hook school shooting on December 16th, the gun ban lobby has been almost giddy with the prospect of getting everything they want on their long wish list, especially a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban. But in some places, the talk is of confiscation or forced compensated confiscation (so-called buy backs).

This report by a New York CBS affiliate notes that New York Police are actually considering how they would go about collecting all those "assault rifles" in the event the ban is renewed.

The last time the ban was enacted, existing firearms were grandfathered.  Would the new darling of the media, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, go along with a ban that also called for confiscation?

Kopel Writes about Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown

Maybe Virginia Senator Mark Warner, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and now Republican Senator Marco Rubio should have read Dave Kopel's Op/Ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal before jumping on the modern sporting rifle ban bandwagon:

Back in the mid-1960s, in most states, an adult could walk into a store and buy an AR-15 rifle, no questions asked. Today, firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States. If someone wants to purchase an AR-15 or any other firearm, the store must first get permission for the sale from the FBI or its state counterpart. Permission is denied if the buyer is in one of nine categories of "prohibited persons," including felons, domestic-violence misdemeanants, and persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or alcoholic.

And for those talking about bans on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds:

Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault.

Read Kopel's entire article.  He makes some similar points that Western Idaho professor Clayton Cramer makes in this article.