From Gun Buy-Back to Gun Show

June 30, 2013

This past weekend, a group known as "1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC", with the help of a local delegate and cooperation from the local mayor and police chief in Laurel, Maryland, effectively turned a so-called gun "buy-back" into a 'gun show', allowing citizens to purchase others' unwanted firearms instead of them going to the "buy-back" program and later being destroyed.

Check them out at https://www.facebook.com/1millionmomsagainstguncontrol, https://twitter.com/1MMAGC (@1MMAGC)  and http://www.1mmagc.org/.

Some of their Facebook posts about the recent event in Maryland and their broader intent are below.

===
June 27, 2013

1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC

***MARYLAND***

We, along with the help of Delegate Smigiel from Maryland, have the approval and authority to counter the Laurel Police Department Gun Buyback this Saturday. Here is the announcement from the Laurel Police Department.

"Mayor Craig A. Moe and Laurel Police Chief Richard McLaughlin announce a Gun Buy-back/Turn-in which will be funded and operated by the City of Laurel. The City of Laurel and Laurel Police Department, with support from A New Life Church of Christ of Laurel and Prince George’s Chapter of the NAACP, have scheduled the Gun Buy-back/Turn-in for Saturday, June 29, 2013 between the hours of 9am and 1pm at the Laurel Armory which is located at 422 Montgomery Street, Laurel, Maryland 20707. The City will be offering Visa Gift cards in exchange for any unwanted Firearms voluntarily turned in for disposal and destruction during the Gun Buy-back/Turn-in program. Participants remain anonymous, no questions asked."

We're turning this "gun buyback" into a "Gun Show"

Looking for a cheap firearm?
Looking for collectors firearms?

Those wishing to pay a fair market value for a firearm may attend the gun buyback program at the above location and purchase the firearm through one of several FFL's that we have contacted and will have present during the hours above.

FFL Will take possession of the firearm until the required background check, which is already in place, is complete and approved. FFL is authorized to release on the 8th day after the paperwork is turned in by the FFL.

Go Get Your Gun. We the People!!!

===
June 29, 2013

1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC

**ATTENTION**

We are seeking gun buybacks to turn into legal gun shows!
If you hear of any "Gun Buyback" programs or events happening in your area, let us know!! Send the information to heatherm@1mmagc.org

We want to turn them into "Gun Shows" so public sales are possible! (In accordance with all state laws)

We need you to be our eyes and ears so if you hear of one, please send us as much information on it as possible, time, date, location etc.

1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC

1MMAGC would like to thank Mayor Craig Moe and the Laurel Police Department for allowing us to counter their buyback and allow citizens to outbid for some wonderful antique and historic firearms.

Laurel Police were very respectful, and professional at all times, and Delegate Mike Smigiel was able to pick up a Circa 1925 Colt .380. Another woman was able to purchase her first firearm, ever.

A good amount of unwanted guns were either turned in or sold to law abiding citizens who would give them a good home. I am sad to say that a few pieces of American History were lost to the scrap heap, but overall I think its was an example of how Law Enforcement and the gun rights community can work together to achieve a common goal.

===
So-called gun "buy-backs" are not new. Several cities have held them this year. Opposition to them is also not new and has taken multiple forms from written criticism to grass-roots efforts by opportunistic citizens to make private purchases instead allowing functional firearms to be destroyed. 1MMAGC is the first group I've heard of that is attempting to do this in an organized fashion. Good for them and let's hope they're successful in their future efforts.

This June 2013 article is about 2 individuals who privately purchased firearms in competition with a Cleveland, Ohio 'buy-back' program: http://www.guns.com/2013/06/18/private-citizens-and-police-compete-to-gain-guns-in-cleveland-gun-buyback-video/

In January 2013 the grass-roots effort was much larger with dozens of private purchasers: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/private-buyers-invade-seattle-gun-buyback-offer-cash-for-firearms-that-would-otherwise-be-destroyed-by-police/

Here is some of the criticism of the effectiveness of these 'buy-back' programs. One of these is a study from 2004, the other an article from 2013. There are MANY other criticisms of these programs but much of their messages echo what's written here.

"The theoretical premise for gun buy-back programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

National Research Council: Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review (2004): http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=95
http://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

"Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.
The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither."

"Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence."

"several studies over the years have examined the weapons retrieved during buybacks and the level of gun violence in the months after the events.

Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usually aren't the type used in crimes, and the impact of the buybacks on crime was "not statistically significant." "

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

This final article is very biased against a particular so-called gun 'buy-back' that took place in Phoenix, Arizona. It's kind of a long, tedious article and I think much of it is just noise - barking up the wrong tree(s) - but intermixed in the noise are some excellent points and criticisms, including whether such programs are actually huge violations of federal, state and local law! If you're interested in the topic, you might appreciate spending the time to read this article.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/06/largest-straw-purchase-of-guns-in-history-goes-uninvestigated/#ixzz2XhUisXbC

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/from-gun-buy-back-to-gun-show.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Toy Gun Exchange
Recovering Confiscated or Relinquished Firearms

First Boulder Airlift, now this. Magpul comes through for Colorado customers, again.

June 30, 2013

Magpul has come through for its Colorado customers again!

With the new restrictive gun control laws taking effect July 1st, including one that limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds but grandfathers larger capacity magazines owned prior to the new law taking effect, Magpul gave away 1,500 30-round magazines to Colorado residents for free. The giveaway took place yesterday at the "A Farewell to Arms" festival in Infinity Park in Glendale.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23547501/colorados-magpul-give-away-1-500-30-round#ixzz2XQRAQWDy

According to this Washington Times article, "The highlight of the event came as a Magpul helicopter landed near the field, dropping off boxes of magazines along with keynote speaker Dana Loesch, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host based in St. Louis." They have their own helicopter? Cool!

It also lists the quantity of magazines as 20,000 but includes both free and price discounted magazines. With 5,000 people in line for them I think it's fair to say that Colorado now has 20,000 additional 30-round magazines in the state in addition to the ones owned prior to December 2012 and those purchased in a mad rush since December 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting and the gun control mania that has swept the nation.

Right, all those magazines now in consumers' hands will somehow be distinguishable from the ones purchased from out of state starting tomorrow. Of course they won't. This law is anything but "common sense" or "reasonable" and is unenforceable, as stated by Colorado county sheriffs, 55 of 62 of whom have filed a lawsuit opposing it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/magpul-floods-colorado-ammo-magazines-2-days-gun-l/

Earlier this year, after the legislation was passed, Magpul announced "Boulder Airlift", a special program wherein Colorado residents living outside of Denver could order Magpul magazine products and receive preferential treatment. At the time there was huge demand for Magpul's "standard capacity" magazine products, especially with capacities of 15 rounds or more, and Magpul wanted to ensure Colorado firearms owners would have access to their products before the Draconian laws took effect.

http://www.magpul.com/colorado.html

http://www.slickguns.com/product/magpul-operation-boulder-airlift-1495

Magpul has plans to leave Colorado due to these new laws.

Thanks again, Magpul.

===
July 1, 2013

A few more details here about Magpul's "standard capacity" magazine give-away and discounted pricing, featuring magazines with capacities of more than 15 rounds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591800/colorado-gun-laws-go-into-effect-facing-immediate-backlash/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/first-boulder-airlift-now-this-magpul.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs

"Gun Control Exodus" of Firearms Companies

Gun Hotlines Offering Bounties or Rewards

June 27, 2013

Did New York Governor Andrew Cuomo start a trend with his gun bounty program?

I previously commented on a program there involving an anonymous hotline that offers a $500 bounty to informers of illegal gun possession. This year the program is often attributed to the January 2013 "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law but it's actually been in existence for 1-2 years already. It was so well used that police didn't know it existed, literally. It's gained much more attention since SAFE was passed and reportedly is now advertised on billboards.

It appears this didn't originate in New York though. This January 2013 article briefly describes a similar program from Newark New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker. Booker's program pays $1000 though. I guess New Jersey's guns are worth twice as much as New York's, or maybe they perceive having twice the problem in New Jersey that New York does, or maybe they're twice as rich, or maybe the price of a New Jersey "snitch" is twice that of a New York "snitch".

"...the mayor says in a television commercial. “There is a small group of people in our city that thinks they can walk around with guns. It is unacceptable. But we can’t just wish this would stop. We can’t just hope this will stop. We as individuals have to do something about it.” " That "walk around with guns" thing, that's called the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution and it's described as "bear arms" and it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE and lawful under our constitution!

" “So we have a program in our city right now that’s completely anonymous and we will give you cash,” he continues, “$1,000 to anyone who calls our anonymous tip line. Give us the information about who is carrying a gun and we don’t even have to have a conviction. We arrest that individual and simply get that gun off the streets.” " Yeah, that can't and won't be abused. They pay informers for an ARREST, NOT  CONVICTION! Who pays for a false arrest or one where the charges are later dropped? The innocent citizen exercising their right to "bear arms" and taxpayers!

===
Integrity check: After writing this post I watched the 2:42 video embedded in the article of Mayor Booker promoting this program. His presentation seems honest enough and the program does seem focused on criminals with guns. With so much anti-gun-mania since Newtown I have to admit skepticism and bias in support of 2nd Amendment and gun rights. I still worry about abuse of a program like this. Even perhaps with only good, lawful intentions, too many lawful firearms owners have been heavily, financially victimized by anti-gun government programs and officials. There NEEDS to be protection for the innocent that does NOT involve months or years of bureaucracy, lawsuits, and rights infringement and WITHOUT financial penalty!
===

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/07/cory-booker-offering-1000-reward-for-info-on-illegally-owned-guns/

And it's not just New York and New Jersey. In May 2013, Florida lawmakers also approved a program. This one isn't gun specific but there's a hotline ("snitch" line) for people to report others to government authorities. Is it more or less concerning when it's described by Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw as "We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,"? There have been other, harsh, descriptions provided by others. That "shoot him" part seems reasonable, if it's perceived as a legitimate and imminent threat, but others are focusing on the "hate" part and concerned about abuse of a 'service' like this.

"“What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’”" What does it hurt? Really? This kind of 'community concern' has, in 2013, resulted in multiple government agencies teaming together for coercion, attempted violation of people's rights, attempted firearms registration / confiscation, and threatening to remove a child from the home where no abuse or negligence had taken place and no law was broken.

Why is this necessary anyway? And why does it need a separate $1M in funding? Don't we already have something called the "911 emergency" line and "police non-emergency" numbers? If it's not distinctly different, like trying to capture 'government haters', then why does it even exist?

At least this one appears to not offer 'bounties' or rewards that incentivize people to abuse it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15319-florida-snitch-line-urges-citizens-to-report-neighbors

===

Related blogs:

http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/gun-hotlines-offering-bounties-or.html

Firearms Blog Collections

Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
New Jersey Firearms Blogs

New York's Bounty for Reporting Illegal Guns

Michael Bloomberg Attacks Democratic Senators

June 26, 2013

Two weeks ago a headline appeared, "Rough week for Bloomberg". It focuses on the Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns' (MAIG) failure to obtain their desired outcome in Nevada very recently. "The AP called it, “a significant defeat for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group, Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars working to get the bill passed." "

While that short article was heartening to read, it wasn't nearly rough enough for him or MAIG.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/14/rough-week-for-bloomberg/

But it's gotten worse for "Big Mike" since then. So what's been happening in Bloomberg's tyrannical world of gun control? I'll comment on some here and other issues in following posts.

He started by writing hundreds of wealthy, campaign contributing, New York political donors and asking them to withhold all 'gifts' from the 4 Democratic senators running in 2014 who opposed the gun control legislation that failed in the Senate earlier this year. This is significant because "No state is more essential to the party’s fund-raising: Sitting Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $30.4 million from New York donors in 2012". Bloomberg's message - 'don't support the people who don't believe what I believe or support my agenda'. It doesn't matter to him that they might have been driven by the voices of their constituents, or by their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States including its 2nd Amendment which "shall not be infringed," or by their own beliefs. Bloomberg blames the "gun lobby" and opposing Democratic senators and wants them removed. Bloomberg, an Independent, doesn't care what party they belong to. He only cares that they didn't vote the way he wanted them to. He knows that the Republican senators who voted against gun control and are running in 2014 are less politically vulnerable than the Democrats, so he's not targeting them, at least right now The ironic thing, as pointed out in this article, is that the Democrats' agenda most closely matches with Bloomberg's and Democratic leaders are now critical of Bloomberg for his aggressive stance against their party members and his national gun control tactics, fearing that his opposition will jeopardize Democratic control of the Senate and also judging that his tactics are ineffective in furthering gun control across the nation. Essentially, Bloomberg, through his aggressiveness, could shoot himself and the gun control agenda in the foot, pun intended.

"In an interview, Mr. Bloomberg said he believed gun deaths had reached such a state of crisis that he needed to force the issue." That's an interesting statement since the data irrefutably shows that gun-related crime and deaths have been on a downward trend for 20 years and are near all-time lows.

"Mr. Bloomberg said voters would reward the senators if they heeded the public — which broadly favors background checks — instead of the National Rifle Association and other groups opposed to the legislation." There's still no acknowledgement here, of course, that the huge majority of voters are supporting "background checks" without having ANY idea what's hidden in the details of the various legislative proposals and that they're anything but "common sense" or "reasonable".

In any context his statement, "That’s what democracy is all about", is a real gem considering he seems to think democracy is really about him spending huge amounts of money, abusing power, manipulation, and ultimately getting his way about extending for a mayoral term beyond the term limits of New York City (NYC), cigarette smoking, retail sales of soda, gun control, taxi / cab operations in NYC, etc.

Democratic criticism of Bloomberg includes "Privately, Democratic senators and aides complain that the shaming, scolding tone of some of Mr. Bloomberg’s ads is counterproductive. The mayor’s group has accused senators who voted against background checks of betraying their constituents and distorting the facts on gun control, an antagonism that many Democrats fear will only make the “no” votes firmer.", "“In Alaska, having a New York mayor tell us what to do? The guy who wants to ban Big Gulps?” Mr. Begich asked incredulously. “If anything, it might help me” ", and more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/nyregion/bloomberg-urges-no-gifts-to-democrats-who-blocked-gun-bill.html?_r=0

In another article is written, "Bloomberg has been out for blood running ads against Democrats who didn’t vote for those measures. But it turns out, Bloomberg’s efforts to unseat anti-gun control Democrats are backfiring." and "Schumer suggests Bloomberg’s targeting of pro-gun Democrats for their votes against gun-control legislation is unproductive. “Frankly, I don’t think Bloomberg’s ads are effective,” Schumer said. “The Mayor of New York City putting ads against people in red states is not going to be effective.” " Let's hope they're right about backfiring and lack of productivity.

http://bearingarms.com/mike-bloombergs-gun-control-message-backfiring/

In yet another article, this Bloomberg supporting author think he's focusing on the wrong things, acknowledging that gun control wouldn't even be a national debate right now if it weren't for the Newtown tragedy last December. Apparently, Bloomberg is also pushing a $20 billion plan for NYC to improve its flood protection in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. The author thinks Bloomberg should be fighting gun control within NYC limits and "carbon-related global warming" or "climate change" on a more global scale.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113461/bloomberg-wrong-focus-gun-control-instead-climate-change#

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/michael-bloomberg-attacks-democratic.html
Firearms Blog Collections

More New York "SAFE" Opposition - From Counties

June 26, 2013

Does anything look out of balance with these New York state maps? They show OVERWHELMING county opposition to Governor Andrew Cuomo's gun control "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law that he and other gun control advocates rammed through the legislature early in 2013. This website has links to the individual county resolutions: http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-new-york-safe-opposition-from.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
New York Firearms Blogs
More New York "SAFE" Opposition - From Sheriffs
Injunction Against New York Governor Cuomo's "SAFE" Gun Control Law
Demonstration Against New York's "SAFE" Law

Bacon bullets? This is a bad idea.

June 26, 2013

Bacon bullets? Okay, "pork-laced" or "pork-infused" bullets? This is a bad idea. Gun rights / gun control is already controversial enough for its inherent issues. There's no need to throw more fuel on an already roaring bonfire with accusations of hate and everything else this could be interpreted as.

"With Jihawg Ammo, you don’t just kill an Islamist terrorist, you also send him to hell. That should give would-be martyrs something to think about before they launch an attack. If it ever becomes necessary to defend yourself and those around you our ammo works on two levels,” the company said in a press release earlier this month."

http://bearingarms.com/ammo-manufacturer-creates-pork-laced-bullets-to-fight-terrorism/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/bacon-bullets-this-is-bad-idea.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Gun Control Taxation of the 2nd Amendment

June 25, 2013

Emily Miller of the Washington Times wrote this article, "New taxes penalize gun owners, threaten Second Amendment". It covers some of the topics and creative attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights that I've commented on in the past but also has 1 or 2 I wasn't aware of.

The Good:
* introduced legislation on June 13 that would make it illegal for states and municipalities to raise taxes or fees on firearms and ammunition
* would also prevent raising taxes in order to pay for background checks

The Bad:
* Chicago started the movement late last year by enacting a $25 tax on new firearm purchases
* In February, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, California Democrat, and 26 of the most uber-liberals in the House introduced a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to create an excise tax of 10 percent on any concealable gun in order to empower Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to establish a firearms buy-back grant program.
* Massachusetts is considering a 25 percent excise tax on all firearms, ammunition and parts as part of its overall gun-control agenda.
* Nevada Assembly is moving on a bill to impose a $25 tax on each gun and 2 cents for each round of ammunition sold by a dealer.
* Connecticut legislators proposed this year a 50-cent sales tax on ammunition.
* Washington state is considering a proposal to tax every firearm sold at retail at $25 (lowered to $15 if the buyer springs for a gun safe or gun lock) and 1 cent on each round of ammunition.
* Maryland and Connecticut, both of which are proposing raising taxes on ammunition by 50 percent. Alcohol, which is not guaranteed by the Constitution but leads to more deaths than firearms, is the only other item in the Free State that is taxed higher than the 6 percent sales tax, but it is only 9 percent.
* A bill introduced in New Jersey proposes a 7 percent levy on ammunition sales.
* The California Assembly is considering a bill to impose a 5-cent-per-round levy on retailers for “the privilege of selling ammunition.”

"The Constitution says ‘shall not infringe’." "When you place this outrageous tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms, it’s intended to curtail those rights." Yes, it does and, yes, it is.

"These costly measures disproportionately affect lower-income people, who often live in higher-crime areas. Along with other costly mandates, such as maintaining liability insurance, these restrictions would likely be overturned as unconstitutional by the courts.

“This is no different than a poll tax — but on the Second Amendment." " Yep.

"These anti-gun politicians are clearly trying to unduly burden the exercise of the Second Amendment by pricing firearms and ammunition out of reach of many law-abiding Americans." No doubt.

Is there any doubt that there is a serious attack on our 2nd Amendment rights or about how serious and widespread it is? Gun control advocates are pushing their anti-gun agenda far, far beyond the limits of "common sense" or "reason".

Those gun buy-back programs they want firearms owners to fund... they serve no practical purpose whatsoever. The numbers are small. The people turning in firearms are not criminals. They're not removing guns from the "streets", they're removing them from circulation. Most have never been used in crime or ever would be. People who own firearms and don't want them any more can always sell them or, if they don't want them in circulation, drop them off at their local police department. There's no reason to incentivize them with public funds or by burdening gun owners, except to punish gun owners for exercising their constitutional right.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/taxing-the-second-amendment/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/gun-control-taxation-of-2nd-amendment.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Are the firearms and ammunition supplies recovering?

June 24, 2013

There's both good news and bad news for firearms owners.

When I visited Cabelas two weeks ago there was ammo on their shelves. Their top shelf had about 8 linear feet of .223 ammo. I happened to walk in on a Wednesday night. I visited again the following day and there was still a lot of it left. I don’t know if this is a true recovery or if I walked in at exactly the right time. Someone there told me that their shipments normally come in on Thursdays, so maybe it actually comes in Wednesday nights, or it came in early that week… Cabelas is still limiting ammo sales to a total of 5 boxes. There’s also a lot of variability in pricing. .223 ammo ranged from $7 for 20 rounds to $25 for 50 rounds. I recently saw .223 available somewhere else ranging from $11 to ~$17 for 20 rounds.

.22 caliber ammo was still not available at all at Cabelas.

But there were LOTS of 25-round magazines for Ruger 10-22 rifles. Magazines have also been in very short supply since last December. It appeared most magazine types were hanging from their pegs, so that part of the supply may have recovered.

Today I found this article about AR-15 supply recovering and prices dropping too.

Universally, it seems like ammo is still going to be the problem in the future. From the comments at this website it’s .223, .22 and 9mm that are most in demand. I also had a conversation with someone a few days ago who is having trouble finding .380.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/foghorn/bottom-drops-out-of-ar-15-market/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/are-firearms-and-ammunition-supplies.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Bulletproof Clothing and Backpacks

June 23, 2013

At the cost of $250 per bulletproof backpack and who knows how much for the bulletproof clothing I'm not convinced this idea will catch on but I admire the ingenuity.

The video demonstration of a point-blank gunshot at a live person wearing the clothing is impressive although highly risky and questionable. I wish they went into more detail - prices, weight, characteristics, etc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57590630/designer-makes-bulletproof-clothing-for-kids/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/bulletproof-clothing-and-backpacks.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Protection from Firearms Blogs

Protection from Firearms Blogs

Protection from Firearms Blogs:

Bulletproof Clothing and Backpacks
Bulletproof Whiteboards Intended to Improve School Safety
Anti-rape underwear called "SHE"

===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Protection from Firearms Blogs

###

Gun Control Advocates Suffer Pinocchio's Curse

June 23, 2013

How many times have we heard or read some version of these quotes from the iconic gun control advocates - President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Piers Morgan, et al?

===

“Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?” — President Obama, remarks on gun safety, March 28, 2013

“FACT: Nearly 40% of all gun sales don't require a background check under current law. #DemandAction” — tweet from @BarackObama, March 28

"Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check." - Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday, January 24th, 2013 in an interview on MSNBC

"There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check … 40 percent of guns are sold that way" - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, July 2012
===

It's too bad for their ideological push to infringe on Americans' constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment rights that that statistic and others they use are false and that they are nothing but liars each and every time they use them.

The 40% number was debunked by several sources shortly after it began circulating in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. So why is it still in use then? Because it's powerful, it sounds so compelling and because influential gun control advocates know that if they led with the truth they'd wouldn't be successful in pushing their anti-gun agenda. The Washington Post originally assigned a "Verdict Pending" status to this in the wake of Newtown. It was later downgraded to 2 Pinocchios. Now it's been further downgraded to 3 Pinocchios.

"...we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.” And the Associated Press, in a March fact check, labeled this factoid “old and surely very tired.”"

"There are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.”  Those are much broader categories of data."

"This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment." This is a HUGE factor in data analysis! They have apples and oranges in the same dataset.

"the survey sample was just 251 people"

"when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent."

So there was uncertainty even at the root source of the data with "probably" answers. Then even with a margin of error of +/- 6%, gun control advocates take the high number and round up to the convenient 40% number.

"when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent"

"...the Senate bill that would expand background checks — supported by the White House — specifically makes an exception for “a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings” as well as “the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will."

"...in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent." HALF the number being spread by gun control advocates - using the same data as re-analyzed by the original author of the study!

"Cook and Ludwig wrote “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/03/obama-criticized-for-using-dated-disputed-gun-stat-to-sell-background-checks/

Here are several other sources that discredit or at least acknowledge the inaccuracy of the oft-used 40% claim:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/31/investigating-the-40-percent-myth-regarding-guns-sold-without-background-checks-video/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/police-chief-johnsons-testimony-40-bypass-background-checks-is-false/

"Even in its heyday, the statistic wasn't the kind you could count on.

A finding that 30 percent to 40 percent of guns changed hands outside the background-check system was, at best, a rough guide post in the murky gun-ownership universe.

At least it was fresh.

Now it's old and surely very tired. But President Barack Obama, some Democratic lawmakers, a coalition of mayors and others arguing for expanded background checks won't let that statistic rest in peace.

To hear them talk, you'd think it was born yesterday, rather than 20 years ago."

"OBAMA, on Jan. 16: "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks.... But it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, a coalition favoring tighter gun controls, on Tuesday: "Around 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers are conducted by unlicensed 'private sellers' who are not required to conduct a federal check, and who often do business at gun shows and on the Internet."

NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Dec. 17: "Congress should pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the 'private sale loophole' that allows more than 40 percent of gun sales to go through without a background check."

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I., Jan. 26: "More than 40 percent of sales nationally are made without background checks."

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, Jan. 17: "Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can't say with absolute certainty what I'm about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the ... background check system." "

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fact-check-gun-debate-deals-moldy-stats

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/30/kirsten-gillibrand/gillibrand-says-40-percent-guns-sold-today-escape-/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/gun-control-advocates-suffer-pinocchios.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Violent Crime & Firearms Background Checks

Handgun Selection Advice for Women

June 22, 2013

Women who are considering purchasing a handgun may be interested in this 1st-time gun buying woman's article about her experience.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/15/what-we-learned-when-we-sent-a-female-reporter-shopping-for-a-home-defense-handgun/

===
July 10, 2013

The description of this book, "The Rookie's Guide to Guns and Shooting, Handgun Edition", looks good. There's probably something in here we could all learn about handgun selection and introduction into the world of firearms. Even those well acquainted might learn how to better introduce their friends and family members.

http://books.broadwayworld.com/article/The-Rookies-Guide-to-Guns-and-Shooting-Handgun-Edition-from-Insanely-Practical-Guides-is-Released-20130709

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/handgun-selection-advice-for-women.html
Firearms Blog Collections
More Women Giving Guns a Shot

"Bushmaster CEO breaks silence on Newtown school shooting"

June 20, 2013

"George Kollitides, the CEO of Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, was blamed by some as being complicit in the killings. He has not commented on the controversy, until now.

“It’s very easy to blame an inanimate object. Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility,” 

“He killed the gun’s owner, stole her car, stole her gun and then went to a school and killed innocent kids. No background checks could have prevented that. He illegally obtained the guns,” “Only two things could have potentially stopped him: his mother locking up her guns and an armed guard. Even then, he could have driven his stolen car into a playground full of kids. He was intent on killing, which we know is already illegal.” 

“At the time of Sandy Hook, Connecticut had a pre-existing ‘assault-weapon’ ban, which like all gun bans, was based on cosmetic features, which once again proves the looks of a gun have nothing to do with its effectiveness. Any weapon in the hand of a criminal or those bent on destruction is dangerous. Bans don’t work. Preventing access and punishment work,” 

“I’m clearly for preventing criminals and the mentally ill from getting firearms. I’m not against well-written background checks, but the devil is in the details,” Mr. Kollitides said. “No matter how well intended, if legislators get the details wrong, we will end up with a backdoor registration, which is where some of the recently defeated federal legislation was taking background checks.”

“The key is to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting firearms, and, when they do, punish them to the maximum extent of the law”.

“A better mental health system. Accountability of neighbors and parents. I have three young kids; at the end of the day, I am a huge proponent of armed guards in schools.”

“We want to make sure we make a quality product, a safe product, it doesn’t misfire, it doesn’t fall apart.”

“However, it’s inherently a dangerous product. When you load it, unsafe it, point and pull the trigger, it’s going to have a devastating affect on anything in its path. That’s why we need to emphasize safety, accountability and responsibility.” "

I generally agree with those statements, as opposed to these shameful ones.

"Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC charged on Feb. 16 that the CEO is “the merchant of death who made the Bushmaster military-style assault rifle used to rip up the bodies of the 20 children and six educators.”

Mr. O'Donnell then put Mr. Kollitides‘ photo on the screen and said, “Leave it up there for a while. I want this merchant of death to be stared at by a national audience for as long as possible.”

The New York Times published an editorial in January that said Bushmaster’s advertising caused criminal behavior, concluding that, “Given their financial success, gun makers have apparently decided that the risk of an occasional massacre is part of the cost of doing business.” "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/bushmaster-ceo-reflects-on-newtown/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/bushmaster-ceo-breaks-silence-on.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Insurance Companies Take Sides in Gun Control Debate

June 20, 2013

Wright Specialty Insurance, Continental Western Group and EMC Insurance Companies have taken sides in the gun control debate. They already provide insurance for Kansas school districts but will restrict coverage for concealed carry of firearms or not renew their coverage for districts that allow it.

A "new law lets school boards designate employees who can bring guns to school. The employees must have valid concealed-carry permits."

While I mostly agree with " “We understand that school districts have every right to decide which way they want to go,” Bernie Zalaznik, EMC’s resident vice president in Wichita, said Monday. “But we have to make the decision based on what we perceive to be our best financial interest.” " I remain skeptical that this is a purely financial interest decision. Why? There are schools in other states that have allowed concealed carry for many years without incident. Homeowners insurance already covers incidents involving firearms. There are many high-risk activities that are covered by insurance companies - law enforcement, flying, skydiving, SCUBA diving, motorcycle riding, race car driving, etc. And it seems from the article that they do already provide insurance where firearms are in the schools - in the hands of law enforcement officers. Those officers are not immune to negligent discharges of their firearms of having them taken from them.

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-06-18/no-school-insurance-teachers-guns

Have you seen the YouTube video of an officer discussing firearms safety in a classroom? It's worth watching this 2:49 video to see him shoot himself with his "unloaded gun". I realize this will embolden many gun control advocates, "see, guns in the classroom are dangerous", but we don't need to go there, do we? I don't think we're expecting licensed, trained, authorized school staff to teach firearms safety and we hope they'll never have to draw their firearm in school for any reason - certainly not for classroom demonstration. Firearms safety should be taught in schools but should be provided in a truly safe environment and by trained professionals who provide that service - with better safety performance records than this particular officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

===
July 2, 2013

Despite 100 years of precedent, no one will be allowed to march in the Independence Day Parade in Belton, Texas while carrying firearms, including the color guard and battle re-enactors.

The L&N Insurance Group of Temple, Texas refuses to insure the event if there are firearms present. That's not that they will charge more - it's that they refuse to insure. As mentioned in the comments of this article, insurance companies measure risk and charge appropriate rates. With firearms incidents by law abiding people at public events, there's no reasonable justification for refusing to insure the town for the event except to make a political statement. Also as suggested in the comments, either the town should get a different insurance company, those who would normally participate with firearms should not march - including the color guard, or the parade should be cancelled. This is another ridiculous pro-gun control statement that shows complete ignorance for the real issues. This does NOTHING to prevent someone from actually committing a crime with a gun there - and that kind of person would likely not be a registered participant of the formal parade. It's also mentioned that it does nothing to prevent firearms in general from being present as many people will have their personal, lawfully carried concealed firearms with them - just not as they march - unless they just don't display them as they march.

L & N Insurance Group, Temple, Texas is the insurer that is refusing coverage:

Main Office Address

4311 West Adams Ste. 209
Temple, TX 76504

Main Office Phone
tel. (254) 771-5581
fax (254) 771-5589

Post Office Box
P.O. Box 366
Temple, TX 76503
Email Us

general@lninsurancegroup.com

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/parade-marchers-soldiers-banned-from-carrying-rifles-during-local-parade-for-first-time-in-100-years/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/insurance-companies-take-sides-in-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
Companies with Negative Gun Policies

Illinois Firearms CONFISCATION

June 12, 2013

Incidents of firearms CONFISCATION continue. The latest is in Arlington Heights, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.

Arthur Lovi had 3 antique firearms confiscated because he sought grief counseling in August 2012 due to several losses in his life going back almost 10 years, including his wife 9 years earlier. He admitted to anger over a misdiagnosis of his wife's condition but acknowledged it probably wouldn't have saved his wife. The psychological counselor perceived a threat to the doctor and felt obligated to inform local police but also told them she didn't think Lovi was a danger to himself or others. Regardless, that cover-your-ass (CYA) phone call set the wheels in motion resulting in threats, intimidation, illegal search and seizure, a denial of due process under the law, 'encouraged' (forced) psychological evaluation that lasted less than a day before determining he was not a threat, and months of withholding his property that he only got back (damaged) after getting (and paying for?) a lawyer. This is not the America we all studied in high school.

"Lovi told the therapist about Cindy's death and his bitterness over the incorrect diagnosis.

"I'll have hard feelings about it until the day I die," Lovi says now. "Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I'll never know."

After the session, Lovi's therapist was concerned. She called the Arlington Heights police to report he had made a threat against the first doctor who saw his wife.

She told them she didn't think he would carry it out or that he was dangerous to himself or others, but she just wanted to do her job and report it."

Without knowledge of all the specifics of the case, one person's general opinion was "if it had ended violently, people would be asking questions about why the police didn't take Lovi's weapons". That's true enough. But by what 'reasonable' standard are we measuring things? The misdiagnosis he was bitter about happened 9 years earlier and he'd shown no outward aggression. The counselor who reported the 'threat' also said she didn't think he'd carry it out or that he was a threat to himself or other. The forced psychological evaluation said he wasn't a threat to himself or others. And they still refused to return his property! They lied to him in the process. They sent him to 'get a note' from a counselor. They didn't return his property until he got a lawyer, months later. What's the statute of limitations on depression being used to infringe on multiple constitutional civil rights?

The article isn't too long but goes into much greater detail describing the whole ordeal.

Good luck, Mr. Lovi, in your pending lawsuit. While you only be pursuing fair compensation and may not be interested in financial gain or penalizing the Arlington Heights Police Department, I'm sitting on the sidelines hoping it hurts them and sends a powerful message that this is NOT acceptable.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130609/news/706099896/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/illinois-firearms-confiscation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
Illinois Firearms Blogs

New Jersey Sidesteps Senate Committee Rules in Push for Gun Control

June 12, 2013

It appears from this 'article' that the New Jersey Senate has taken a lesson from Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. The embedded audio clip shows they're trying to set aside committee procedure because they're finding it doesn't suit their intent to pass stricter gun control legislation. They won't allow the voting on a particularly bad piece of gun control legislation to conclude and try to move on to other business because they realize they don't have enough votes to pass it. Despicable.

'Oops, we've introduced an amendment, started the voting process and will now table it before voting concludes because in the midst of the voting it's clear it's not going our way. So we'll just table it for now until we can be more certain of an outcome favorable to our position. We cannot allow the vote to conclude because then it would actually have failed.'

This short 'article' is mostly an email, so don't consider it objective journalism. Its description of the proposed legislation is VERY concerning though. If the description is accurate and if it gets passed it would represent a huge infringement on 2nd Amendment rights for New Jersey residents.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/tv-star-tweets-on-guns-loses-half-her-following/

===
June 26, 2013

People in favor of gun rights will 'love' this story.

Firearms owners too often have to abide by laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment that "shall not be infringed" but gun rights groups in New Jersey won't stand for "vote-rigging" in the otherwise already tainted legislative process.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society have served legal notice to Democratic New Jersey Assembly Speaker Shelia Oliver that anti-gun bill A4182 AND 10 other bills with action taken must be rescinded due to manipulation of the legislative process in violation of explicit assembly rules. This is sweet!

In short, when taking the votes on the gun control bill, the process was put "on hold" once the Democrats in control of the committee realized they didn't have enough votes to pass it. They moved on to other business instead in spite of the opposition voicing its concern for legislative process and committee rules. (It's all on video and available in my previous post on this topic.) That's one violation. The roll call cannot be interrupted for new business until complete and the results announced.

Then they went a step further and transferred to bill to another committee where they knew they would get enough votes to pass it. That's where the "vote-rigging" comes in and is also in violation of assembly rules.

As a result, 11 pieces of legislation, including the gun control bill, have no valid status. They must first complete the roll call / vote for A4182 in the same committee where it has already received enough nay votes that it cannot pass. They they'd have to reintroduce and re-vote on the 10 other bills.

This kind of blatant manipulation, sacrificing the democratic process, to achieve a desired result should be criminal and those responsible should lose their positions and be banned from serving public office!

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/BREAKING--NJ-Gun-Groups-Serve-Legal-Notice-on-Vote--Rigging-.html?soid=1104412490596&aid=9VxHD-SgQLs

Here's the actual legal notice. It's a short letter of only 1.5 pages of real content that's a joy to read in that it's direct and concise. It says 'you cheated, we're calling you on it, this bill shall NOT pass!'

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/DLS_to_Assembly_Speaker_v1.pdf

And here's a 1:24 video showing the bipartisan expression of concerns over this poor and overly restrictive legislation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hCvJxQoSE

===
June 27, 2013

I saw this on Facebook today. I don't have an original source at this time and don't know what was in this specific legislation.

"**BREAKING** A friendly New Jersey assembly member just passed along the news that the anti-gun NJ Bill S2467 / A3668 was VETOED by Governor Christie today. Thank you to the thousands of people who took action at FPC! WE CAN DO THIS - KEEP UP THE PRESSURE at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/. Remember to LIKE and SHARE to spread the word!"

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/new-jersey-sidesteps-senate-committee.html
Firearms Blog Collections
New Jersey Firearms Blogs
New York Governor Cuomo Violates State Constitution in Pushing "SAFE" Gun Control Legislation