I received two emails yesterday from two (one would think) like-minded entities. One, the NRA (full disclosure, I am long time Life Member), the second, Gun Talk Media, an Internet blog and media source.
I have posted on this blog regarding the NRAs push to contact Congress regarding the last administration’s efforts to restrict gun rights to those who may have mental limitations (by their view mental illness). And I have supported their efforts to reverse this measure.
Now comes these emails. The NRAs requesting immediate action on a pending Senate vote to stop this travesty.
And this from Gun Talk Media:
FAKE NEWS ALERT
Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business
As he left office, President Obama screwed American seniors who own or want to own guns by issuing an executive order directing the Social Security Administration to treat seniors in the same miserable way the Veterans Administration does our vets. That is, the SSA now reports to the FBI anyone who prefers to have someone else handle their finances, and the FBI puts that person on the list that is a LIFETIME BAN on owning firearms.
Naturally, the general media portrayed this as keeping guns out of the hands of those with serious mental defects, and when the House of Representatives voted 235 to 180 to repeal this gun confiscation move, the howls from the fourth estate nearly drowned out the facts. Nearly.
As a Gun Talk Truth Squad member, you have the opportunity to push back on these bogus reports, and to answer friends who offer that this ban “seems reasonable.” Here are the facts.
The media said that the SSA would be providing the information to the FBI so these people could
be included in a “background check database.” Well … doesn’t that sound reasonable? The fact is that this move actually puts these people on a list that bans firearms ownership for life.
Who would oppose putting those with “serious mental defects” into a “background check database?” The NRA, of course. But wait. Another vocal opponent is the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union. Groups supporting and providing aid to those who actually do suffer from mental handicaps also opposed the “I’m outta here” move by the departing “vertical pronoun” President to ban tens of thousand of Americans from owning guns, and all without due process.
Here’s an example of the media coverage of the House vote to repeal this rule. This is from Politico.
Democrats ripped the move as an effort by Republicans to undermine background checks for gun purchasers. After the House vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pleaded with supporters to rally against the move in the Senate. “Senate may vote today to weaken background checks on gun purchases. Call your Senator to oppose this change — ensure your voice is heard!” she wrote.
Tell your friends that there has been a law in effect for decades that prohibits the truly mentally incompetent from owning guns, and this law provides for due process. Under current law, if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he or she can’t own a gun. “Adjudicated.” As in, a judge and a court room. Where you can defend yourself. Not a bureaucrat who checks a box and places your name on the banned-for-life list. ~ Tom
So, has the NRA been waving a false flag (creating FAKE NEWS) to feather it’s own nest? Or is it simply rubber stamping additional efforts to let the government know we are no longer allowing our civil rights to be curtailed without due process?
What do YOU think?
(in part from TFB)
There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.
5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:
Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun
did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the
National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as
an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics
This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.
If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.
Next up is the point about Slencers.
Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.
At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The
wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF
to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is
now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer
would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.
The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:
There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.
There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support
ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.
The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.
I wonder if this ‘reversal’ of some contentious regulations has anything to do with the rumor that the President, in his consolidation and streamlining of government bureaucracy, wants to eliminate the BATFE and create a division of the FBI to handle such matters? (Fast & Furious come to mind?) Are they trying to appear more ‘user friendly’ to their constituency to keep their agency and their jobs?
Naw, not possible…
from TFB (in part)
Stupid gun laws develop new solutions, and there seems to be no limits on either.
The Patriot Pin is for AR15s, and to make them compliant to new laws in some US States.
I don’t know how to define this invention if to call it stupid or clever?
I guess you do what you have to do, to adapt to new rules and legislation. Gun owners are typically about as law-abiding as a citizen can get.
From the Patriot Pin homepage:
Because some state laws require the gun be “disassembled”, before the magazine can be loaded from the top or to remove the magazine, the Patriot-Pin makes it extremely fast and easy to do that.
With your hand firmly on the pistol grip, simply extend your thumb to the end of the arm and “push” it in.
You’ll feel the arm stop at just the right spot allowing you to then open your gun so that you have access to the magazine or the magazine lock “button”.
Hundreds of hours of research and development have gone into making the Patriot-Pin, from every angle, edge, and surface and is proudly 100% made and engineered in the USA.
“One hundred hours is about 2.5 working weeks. Of course there’s no definition on how many hundreds of those that went into the R&D, but I figure that a price of 99 USD for this kind of product is expensive.
Don’t let the price scare you, some of that R&D money went into a rather cool webpage which also explains the function of the Patriot Pin way better than I can with words.
Have a look and tell us what you think in the Comments section below, I look forward to that more than ever.
Patriot Pin Homepage
Thank GOD I live in the Free State of Arizona! Now, if I could only afford to get an AR-15! (I used to have FOUR (well, three and a parts gun), in various configurations!) 😦
(from the NRA/ILA, in part)
Grandma Got Run Over by Obama: SSA Finalizes New Gun Prohibition Rule
On Monday, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued
The final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding
(and vulnerable)disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of recharacterizing
them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in it’s history
will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus,
effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits
against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health
Yeah, elderly folks don’t need to defend themselves, right?
In a pig’s eye!
This really torques my jaw!
Most of the ‘older’ folks I know have been gun owners and shooting their entire lives. To have the bureaucracy remove their rights with no due process is obscene.
where the Good Lord split ya!
WASHINGTON – Sen. Barbara Boxer of California bid farewell to Congress on Wednesday after 33 years as a liberal champion, choking up as she read a letter from jazz great Sonny Rollins thanking her for “making life beautiful” for the people she’s represented.
“What he said is all I wanted to do, make life beautiful for people,” Boxer said in her farewell speech on the Senate floor. “I didn’t always succeed … I can honestly say that I never stopped trying.”
MORE HERE IF YOU REALLY GIVE A SHIT
Like the old joke about the guy hitting his dates with a two-by-four…
Thirty three years is way too long for anyone, progressive/conservative/green/libertarian to be a sitting United States Senator!
So very glad this one is gone.
If memory serves, she demanded a military officer address her as Senator, instead of Ma’am. Technically, we’re supposed to, in accord with Rules of Etiquette. But an officer operates under different rules!
I, for one, will not. Ever.
(from Joel in part)
Here’s an actual headline I did not make up…
SAFE Act seems to fail at keeping guns from criminals
You guys remember the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, right? It was going to make New Yorkers safe from scary-looking rifles and standard-capacity magazines, as well as restricting ammo sales and forcing shrinks to snitch on their patients. Thus, you know, ushering in the glorious millennium or some thing, I dunno.
And here’s a total shock: In addition to turning virtually every New York gun owner into a felonious scofflaw, it doesn’t do any of the things promised! Wow. It’s just so out of the blue. Who saw that coming?
Undismayed, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman attacks the problem head-on with strawmen and buzzwords blazing:
“Target on Trafficking: Analysis of New York Gun Crimes” found that 74 percent of guns used in a crime recovered in New York came from outside this state.Of these, 70 percent originated “in just six states with weak gun laws — the states along I-95 that make up the Iron Pipeline,” says an online presentation on the report.
Yes, of course it’s not the fault of New York’s well-meaning totalitarians. They wrote a perfect nightmare of a law, which would have worked perfectly if not for all those other state lawmakers with all those weak gun laws! Yeah!
“The Iron Pipeline.” I love it. I hope whichever writer came up with that one got paid a generous bonus. Then had a piano fall on his head.
Surprising to me, though, is that the article writer actually dares point out that it ain’t necessarily so…
However, the report’s data shows that the percentage of crime guns from out of state remained remarkably even before and after New York’s SAFE Act was passed in 2013. From 2010 to 2015, it only fluctuated between 73 and 75 percent. The number of recovered crime guns went down, along with the violent crime rate throughout the Northeast, but the out-of-state percentage stayed the same.
[B]y Mr. Schneiderman’s measure, it hasn’t worked. If the out-of-state gun percentage had spiked since the new restrictions took effect, that might indicate criminals were being foiled here and turning more often to other states, but that doesn’t seem to have happened.
Careful there, kid. Speaking truth to power works best from a respectful distance.
Continue to fight the good fight.
Republicans have The House – the purse strings
Republicans squeaked by in keeping The Senate.
This is important.
Just because Republicans have both the House AND the Senate doesn’t mean statist gun-control types are finished!
Keep checking your six, and keep your powder dry.
Oh, yeah – DONALD JOHN TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I wish him well, but have no allusions he’s for stopping all the wars, the TSA, rendition, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, no-knock warrants, NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens, sobriety checkpoints and supports open and CCW everywhere!
Or that he can get his own party’s support to built a wall.
Not that many years ago, he was for gun control and a so-called ‘assault weapons ban’. He claims to have changed his stripes. People can change. Hillary was once a Goldwater Republican. Charlton Heston (in the distant past) supported gun control.
AND DJT remains a big government statist populist. (Although, he likes McDonald’s and drove his own car during the campaign, sometimes). Hillary hasn’t driven her own car in 35 years? Remember Bush marveling at supermarket scanners? Out-of-touch, much?
Regardless of party labeling, we should continue to watch ALL the Republicans (and of course the Democrats/Progressives/Socialists).
AND, the White House.
It’s not specific parties that are evil.
In Greek mythology Sisyphus (;Greek: Σίσυφος, Sísuphos) was the king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth). He was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it come back to hit him, repeating this action for eternity. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean (). (Wikipedia)
I’m on Facebook less (under my real name) since I’ve been producing a daily blog. Not to mention, the idiocy encountered on FB (especially in the realm of politics) is astounding.
STILL, I do sometimes visit there, and less often participate in political commentary. Because, sadly, there are some folks schooled in courtesy and debate, but many are not.
One of my FB friends is a guy I’ve known since grade school. We also went to the same junior high and graduated in the same class in high school. And attended the same Sunday school.
He claims to be an NRA member and a hunter, but sometimes repeats the time-worn arguments used by the anti-gun-rights community about controls over semiautomatic firearms and magazine capacity.
Not understanding the whole nose-under-the-tent thing, or, for that matter, The Second Amendment.
Regardless, he has a right to his opinion, and to post the same on Facebook.
I mostly just read others postings, occasionally adding my two cents worth. Or just clicking ‘like’.
Unless I am directly attacked!
So this guy mentioned me by name and strongly suggested I knew nothing about the issue, law or history, and should understand HIS interpretation of The Second Amendment! (the whole militia meme).
I took a deep breath (to slow my roll) and responded politely that he read The Federalist Papers and Madison and Tench Coxe to obtain a better perspective! I also recommended reading about how the first efforts on gun control were to stop freed slaves from firearms ownership (in 1809) and continued to the Sullivan Law in NYC (1911) to prevent undesirables (read immigrants) from having guns.
Then, I took another breath.
No response was posted.
BUT, in about a week, I saw another friend’s pro-gun Facebook posting generating a response from this same guy. THE SAME RESPONSE, ALMOST VERBATIM!
Obviously, he had not taken my suggestion to do further research.
I will continue to ‘like’ his comments regarding his new retirement home in Prescott, or his new prosthesis (he is an amputee), but I won’t bother responding any more to his screeds on restricting all our rights.
‘Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.’ – George Carlin
…but, they sure as Hell will!
(from my friend Kevin @ The Smallest Minority)
I WILL NOT Register
I discovered in 2003
that the state of New Jersey had outlawed the original Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber rifle as an “assault weapon” because its tubular magazine held “more than 10 rounds.” Now New York City has done something similar, but it’s magazine capacity limit is five
. And they’re serious about it:
The only effective
use of a firearm registry is to make it easier to take guns away from the law abiding.I will not register. After the first felony, the rest are free.
Thank the gods I live in the (relatively) Free State of Arizona, wherein there is no registration, both CCW licensing and Constitutional Carry, and (still) open carry. And with my five-year CCW permit, no background check for me, if I choose to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.
(of course, being on disability means my income precludes any firearm purchase! 😦 )
Funny how we share a border with The People’s Democratic Republic of California, and none of their ridiculous restrictions on civil liberties have bled over.
Not that Bloomberg & Co. don’t keep trying.
from TFB (in part)
First of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors and family members of the police officers murdered yesterday. The female officer who was killed had just returned from maternity leave. She had a four-month old child. – Guffaw
Whenever I travel somewhere, I have a tendency to notice armed police/security. Especially when they are carrying rifles. Just one week after the Chelsea bombing in NYC, my wife and I took our 4 month old to visit NYC. It was a bit of a risk since I could not legally carry in NYC, but then CCW won’t do much against an IED like what was used last week.. Anyway I noticed an increase in police activity. A lot more police officers on patrol. When I took this picture, I saw people coming up to these officers and thanking them for their service.
However these other officers stood out like sore thumbs in Time Square. They are all wearing Ops-Core helmets and what look like plate carriers. I do like that they have modernized and are using hearing protection which also doubles as communication head sets to their radios. The rifles are sporting what looks like Aimpoint Pros with rear MBUS. The front sight is a folding gasblock front sight and the railed handguards have Inforce WMLs.
I remember posting about civilian police being deployed on a regular basis in teams with selective-fire weaponry some time ago. Beginning in NYC.
And I was told this is already occurring in other metropolitan areas.
I remember active discussions in my Police Science classes (in the mid-70’s) regarding civil liberties versus police presence. And the general consensus was we, as a society, preferred NOT to have cops on every corner! Having them in teams with rifles was not even on the radar, then!
YES, we need policing. How we go about it is the question.
And how we preserve, protect and defend The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights, of course) is another question.
The fact that we even have to ask these questions in the wake of the BLM violence and the cop killings in California (on a domestic violence call) further makes the point.
How armed do we want the police to be versus the legally-armed citizenry?