Is This A False Flag Operation?

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money

---

• You Go, Girl!
• Is This A False Flag Operation?
• The Revised S. 374 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
• Results Of Today's Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting

You Go, Girl! Posted: 12 Mar 2013 06:19 PM PDT Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), one of the more notorious gun prohibitionists in Congress, held a town hall meeting yesterday entitled, "Preventing Another Newtown: A Conversation on Gun Violence in America." The panel included such gun control luminaries as CSGV's Josh Horwitz and the Brady Campaign Legal Project's Jonathan Lowy. There were no one but two people affiliated with Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors - former ATF Special Agent David Chipman and Karen Marangi of the Raben Group, their PR firm. Given this lineup, I'm sure Rep. Moran was a little surprised when the young and very attractive Celia Bigelow confronted him in the Q&A session. She asked why he wasn't "pro-choice when it came to self-defense for women". His response - next question.  Subscribe in a reader

Is This A False Flag Operation? Posted: 12 Mar 2013 05:58 PM PDT In my email this evening I got an email entitled, "Gun Control and the Cultural Divide." It was from the "Southern Conservative Newsletter" and discussed what they termed Northern and Southern views on guns. It starts off by saying: To understand the gun debate, one must know how each side comes to understand guns in the first place. As federal and local lawmakers consider new gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens, how do we shape the debate to actually solve problems such as the safety of our children and the reduction of crime – which are the stated purpose of all gun control efforts? The email says in the South everyone grew up with guns and if you were part of the gun culture you were left out.  Of course, even in the South, not everyone grows up with guns. When it comes to discussing the gun culture of the North, this email starts talking about Newtown and how gun control measures are a reactionary response. I can agree with that but I also know that response is not "Northern" but more urban in character. While still "discussing" the gun culture of the North, this email says we as Southerners can't just "cross our arms and just say 'no' to any discussion of keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally disturbed" or we'll be shut out of the discussion. Now I don't see anyone in the gun culture, Southern or Northern, just crossing our arms and saying "no" to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. In fact, I see most of the impetus on the mental health front coming from us and not the gun prohibitionists. The email concludes by saying: Long prison sentences for those using a gun in a crime, mental health and criminal checks for those wishing to purchase a gun, safety courses - all of these are reasonable ways politicians can reduce criminal use of firearms and protect rights of those who use guns lawfully. We must be the ones to tell them, but we must first understand the nature and thought process of those on the other side of the debate. Since when did anyone need a "safety course" to enjoy their enumerated rights under the Constitution? And are those "mental health and criminal checks" for firearms purchases meant just for those buying from a dealer or do they extend to private sales as well? The email has buttons to either signup for the newsletter or to forward it. Both buttons seem to designed to capture email addresses. What makes me even more suspicious of this email is that if you Google "Southern Conservative Newsletter", you get five results. They are all links to a blog by a liberal Floridian called The Spencerian who is dismissive of the newsletter. The email address given is for the domain "southernconservativenewsletter.com". The only problem is that this domain is a parked domain by GoDaddy.Com and they are offering it up for sale. Call me paranoid or call me suspicious but I don't trust any so-called conservative newsletter pushing background checks and safety courses in order to own a firearm. If anyone has heard of this bunch, I'd like to know more.  Subscribe in a reader

The Revised S. 374 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 Posted: 12 Mar 2013 08:06 PM PDT Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) submitted a substitute amendment for S. 374. This substitute not only changed the name of the bill from the Protecting Responsible Gun Owners Act of 2013 to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 but it also provided that action component that had been missing from the earlier version. Title I of the bill deals with records submission by the states to the Federal government for purposes of integrating that information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This section provides a carrot and stick approach to getting the states to submit data. It provides for a $100 million appropriation for grants to the states to improve their databases and to help them submit the necessary data to the FBI for NICS check. Up to 10% of this money could be used for a relief from disabilities program. That is, a program to report those to whom firearm rights are restored. I must say this would be a change coming from Chuck Schumer who has stymied the relief from firearms disabilities for years. The improved data that the bill concerns would be the court records of  those convicted of a felony and those under either a court order or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as well as the mental health adjudications that would cause the loss of firearms rights. The stick component that goes with the grants from Attorney General would be a reduction in monies from the grants under Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The states would have two years to bring the records submitted to the 50% or greater level or lose 3% of the Federal monies. It goes up to a 4% reduction after three years if the state didn't submit at least 70% of the required records. Finally, after the third year there would be a mandatory 5% reduction for any state at less than 90% compliance. All in all, I can't argue too much about the intent of Title 1. It is in the interest of everyone to have the records at state level be as accurate as possible and it is also in the interest of everyone that the records in the NICS check system be accurate. Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller's wet dream. First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer. The exceptions include: Bona fide gifts between spouses Bona fide gifts between parents and children Bona fide gifts between siblings Bona fide gifts between grandparents and grandchildren Transfers made from a decedent's estate by will or operation of law Temporary transfer between unlicensed persons if It occurs in the home or curtilage (adjacent property) of the transferor The firearm is not removed from the home And the duration is less than 7 days. Temporary transfers in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes At a range if kept within the premises of the range at all times At a "target firearm shooting competition" under the auspices of a State agency or non-profit organization and the firearm is kept within the premise of the shooting competition. If while hunting to a person with the requisite hunting license during a designated season for a legal game animal. Section 202 would set a maximum fee for doing the paperwork. It would also require the Form 4473 be kept by the FFL doing the transfer. The penalty for violating this section is not at all clear. However, it seems to fall upon the FFL who would be liable for a $5,000 civil fine and an up to six months suspension of his or her license. (If you can find another penalty for violating Section 202, please let me know.) Sec. 202 become 18 USC 922 (s) which under 18 USC 924 (D)(5) stipulates a year's imprisonment and a unspecified fine. Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the "Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities." More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment! If passed, the law goes into effect in 180 days from passage. So far, it has passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote. While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.  Subscribe in a reader

Results Of Today's Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting Posted: 12 Mar 2013 01:40 PM PDT As I said earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to resume meeting to discuss three gun related bills and the nomination of Kenneth Gonzales. They have released the results of the meeting and I have posted it below. Gonzales' nomination was not acted upon nor was Dianne Feinstein's S. 150. However, both Sen. Chuck Schumer's S. 374 and Sen. Barbara Boxer's S. 146 were reported out of committee with amendments. Results of Executive Business Meeting - March 12, 2013 The Senate Judiciary Committee held a continuation of an executive business meeting to consider pending legislation on March 12, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on all pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair. Agenda I. Legislation S. 374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8 Amendment ALB13180 (Schumer) Adopted by Unanimous Consent S. 146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote 14-4 Amendment OLL13111 (Leahy) Adopted by Unanimous Consent Amendment OLL13112 (Grassley) Withdrawn  Last week I wrote that I found it strange that Sen. Chuck Schumer's S. 374 - Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 - did not have an action component. It merely consisted of findings which were more suited to a Senate Resolution than to actual legislation. That was then and this is now. The amendment that Schumer made today in committee to S. 374 contains the meat of the bill and it isn't pretty. Not only does it have universal background checks but it contains a provision that requires gun owners to report stolen weapons within 24 hours to authorities. The bill has also been renamed to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. There is more to the bill and I will have a separate post up about it after I finishing reading the whole thing. Here is the link to my separate post on the bill.  Subscribe in a reader

 

	Email delivery powered by Google