Advertisements
Home

House passes ‘Undetectable Firearms Act’ renewal, with 1 ‘No’ vote

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

I sent my Congress Critter an email expressing my

disappointment with his vote.

I hope the Tea Party comes up with someone to oppose

Larry Buschon.

 

On Tuesday, December 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3626, a ten year extension of the “Undetectable Firearms Act,” by voice vote.According to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), he was the onlyonly “No” vote (although since it was a voice vote, that will be hard to verify).

Not only did House Republicans overwhelmingly support this infringement on that which shallshall not be infringed, the bill waswas introduced by North Carolina “conservative” Republican Howard Coble. Coble has an “A” rating from the NRA. Admittedly, Gun Owners of America have awarded him the same grade, but in their case, there is reason forreason for confidence that Coble will downgrade significantly. In the NRA’s case–not so much.

One interesting aspect of H.R. 3626 is the “Constitutional Authority Statement.” For the last several years, House rules have required that every bill be accompanied with a statement outlining what provision of the Constitution empowers Congress to pass the law in question. Rep. Coble would like us to believe that this bill is justified by “Article I. Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.” That, of course, is the long-abused “interstate commerce clause.”

Perhaps Rep. Coble would like to explain how an item one produces on a 3-D printer in one’s own home, for one’s personal use, has anything to do with “interstate commerce.”

Ironically, the greatest remaining hope for killing this legislative atrocity lies in the anti-gun Senate Democrats who are most enthusiastically in favor of it. From McClatchy D.C.:

Some Democrats reportedly think the bill doesn’t go far enough and may vote against it.

. . .

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement on Monday that the House bill was “better than nothing, but it isn’t good enough.” Schumer said it was necessary to close a loophole that allows guns to be made out of plastic as long as they have some metal in them, even if it’s an easily removable part.

Schumer is referring to what he and the doubly dishonestly named “Think Progress” (which advocates neither thought nor progress) call the “loophole” of the current ban’s requirement that a gun contain a certain minimum quantity of metal, but not requiring that the metal comprise a part of the gun that is absolutely necessary for the gun’s function:

Renewed twice since 1988, the federal law bans firearms that go unnoticed by a metal detector and requires them to be shaped like a gun. However, the law by itself does not fully address the threat of plastic guns made from 3D printers, because a loophole permits some plastic guns even if the small metal piece that triggers detectors is removable. One legal model lets owners carry firearms with a removable nail that would not be picked up by metal detectors and X-Ray machines.

In other words, Schumer and “Think Progress” are asking the American people to believe that someone with murderous intent would print an all-plastic gun in order to sneak it onto an aircraft or into a courtroom (what about ammo?) if it were legal, but will not if the government tells him doing so is verboten. Sure, Chuck.

Schumer and fiends (that’s not a typo) apparently are not without allies in the GOP, according to MSNquoting a Kentucky Republican congressman who shares Schumer’s sick desire to “tighten up” the existing ban:

Representative Hal Rogers of Kentucky, a leading Republican, expressed concerns of his own, and said, “I’ll be looking to tighten up the process.”

Unfortunately for Schumer, he appears unlikely to win the Most Hysterical Panicked Screeching Award, despite his impressive effort. That award appears to be unshakably in the grasp of the Brady Campaign‘s Brian Malte, judging by this quote in the Guardian:

“We can’t let a minute or hour or day go by without having a renewal [of the ban],” said Brian Malte, a director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The group’s strong concerns about the availability of plastic guns were “no reason to hold up renewal”, he said.

Malte is evidently of the opinion that our hypothetical aspiring terrorist would print a plastic gun if the the law allows–for a minute (keep in mind that printing guns to date has invariably required a considerable number of hours), but will faithfully obey the law if it never lapses.

As this column has argued repeatedly, the anti-gun zealots’ real objection to printed guns has nothing to do with the silly non-issue of their being “undetectable,” and everything with them being uncontrollable, because a fighting arm that one can make for oneself is clearly not subject to background checks or arbitrary limits on its effectiveness.

And the best news of all is that no law Congress passes can do anything about that. Anyone who has any doubts about that statement is encouraged to check out the Terminal Cornucopia website, featuring weapons designs that can be quickly built from materials one can easily and legally obtain after passing through airport screening measures, with tools that one could legally have brought along. The sidebar video shows the “BlunderBusinessClass” shotgun, but that’s only one of several impressive designs.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Registering for Confiscation

Leave a comment

This is from ARRA News Service.

We need to keep a clear eye and observe our opponents.

We are are in for a long hard fight.

Maybe a Second Revolution.

With Sen. Feinstein latest gun bill, and Sen Schumer’s call for gun registration (below), a reader dug up the following news report. It is by the Canada‘s Sun News posted in January, 2013. It warns U.S. gun owners what will result with gun registration. He provides real world examples of what has happened in Canada where gun registration has led to gun confiscation and making gun ownership illegal.   He even points out an example of a lawful citizen using a weapon to defend his home from firebombs by criminals, has led to the gun owner being charged as a criminal for using his gun.

Sun News’ Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms. Watch the following report while it is still available:

U.S. Chuck Schumer wants so-called “universal” background checks so that the federal government can REGISTER YOUR GUNS.  Every gun owner across America needs to know the truth about Schumer’s plan for “universal” gun registration. See for yourselfOn January 30, 2013, Sen. Chuck Schumer promised that universal background checks wouldn’t create a gun registry. Yet just 13 days later, as Schumer was discussing gun control proposals, he stated, “the one which I’ve been pushing, which is universal registration.” It couldn’t be any clearer — when a politician says “universal background checks,” what they actually mean is “universal registration.

 

Op-Ed: The truth on background checks

Leave a comment

This is from Buckeye Firearms Association.

More gun sales lies debunked.

The so called facts about background checks are debunked.

 

Gun control “deserves a vote,” President Obama said time and again in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. Sadly, the measure Congress is most likely to pass — beefed-up background checks — may cause more harm than good.

First, checks obviously won’t do anything about gun crime in cities like Chicago or New York, which revolves almost exclusively around illegal guns.

But they also wouldn’t stop the mass killings Obama mentioned. The Newtown, Conn., shooter stole his mother’s guns, while the Tucson, Ariz., and other killers didn’t have records that a check would’ve spotted.

You can see the fundamental unseriousness of this proposal just by looking at the numbers cited by its advocates, such as New York’s own Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Schumer tells us that “48 percent of gun sales are made without a background check” and that background checks have “blocked 1.7 million prohibited individuals from buying a gun.” Both stats are just false.

On sales without a check, even the 40 percent figure that President Obama and others use is off. It’s obtained by rounding up of a 36 percent statistic that comes from the only study on this issue.

And that (small) study covered a 1991-94 period, most of which came before the Brady Act took effect on Feb. 28 1994, and for the first time required that all federally-licensed dealers perform checks.

There’s more: The researchers gave this number for all transactions, including family inheritances and gifts, not just “sales.” Count only guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a job requirement or won through raffles, and 85 percent went through federally licensed gun dealers; just 15 percent would’ve been transferred without a background check.

(By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If Schumer et al. really trust the study, they should stop raging about the “gun show loophole.”)

Bottom line: It’s hard to believe that the percentage of sales without background checks is above single digits today.

On to Schumer’s second falsehood — the claim that checks have stopped 1.7 million prohibited sales. In fact, these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after preliminary reviews. Further review cleared at least a fifth of the other 6 percent.

Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? By Sen. Schumer’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

The flaws in the background-check system carry another price: They cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex.

Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks, 7 percent of checks aren’t finished within two hours, with most these delays taking three days or longer.

Delays are undoubtedly just an inconvenience for most people buying guns.But for a few, it makes a huge difference in being able to defend themselves against assailants. Indeed, my own research suggests these delays might actually contribute to a slight net increase in violent crime, particularly rapes.

Expanded background checks might well be reasonable, but only if the current system is fixed. But our politicians are more interested in symbolic action — being seen to “do something” — than in actually saving lives.

John Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission; his new book, “At the Brink,” is due out this week. Click here to read the entire op-ed at NYPost.com

 

Democrat Senator: There Should Be Limits To The First Amendment

1 Comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

In spite of Sen.Schumers claims union will be exempted some how.

As unions are big contributors to DemocRat coffers.

Little Chuckie Schumer would rewrite the entire bill of rights.

Little Chuckie would eliminate the Second Amendment.

Well the Democrats tried a second time in less than 24 hours to push through the DISCLOSE Act which would force unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give more than $10,000. They failed, even after 16 senators held the floor for six hours on Monday evening. The vote was on party lines 53-45, falling short of the 60 votes needed to break the Republican filibuster.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse claimed, “When somebody is spending the kind of money that is being spent, a single donor making, for instance, a $4 million anonymous contribution, they’re not doing that out of the goodness of their heart.”

So Senator Whitehouse knows what people think now, is that what we are to believe? Democrats have to be some of the most presumptive people in the world. They think they should make laws based on what people think. In this case it’s the “why” political donations are given. Well the truth is that someone could make a $5,000 donation and Mr. Whitehouse still wouldn’t have a clue if it was because they were giving out of the “goodness of their heart” or whether it was given to pander to a candidate.

However, it was Democrat Chuck Schumer who took to the floor and declared,

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.

Understand that we don’t need all of this put in place. We don’t need a sequel to McCain/Feingold. The people can simply demand from those who run for office to see their donations and if they don’t want to provide them, fine. Then the people can just simply say if you aren’t going to be transparent we aren’t going to vote for you. It’s as simple as that.

Everyone knows that when it comes to presidential races both sides receive big contributions and in many cases they receive from the same sources. If a law is put in place that demands that these donors are made public, along with their donations, I wonder if Mr. Whitehouse could then tell us if it comes from the “goodness of their hearts” and whether it would please Mr. Schumer that he forced them to tell how much they gave. I suggest Schumer speak to his boss, Mr. Transparent himself, and see if Obama will go ahead and just disclose all his donors and their donations without a law. See how far that gets him. In fact, to make it a bit more amusing, why doesn’t Senator Schumer go ahead and lead by example and do the same thing. I won’t hold my breath.

%d bloggers like this: