[Rushtalk] Examiner: NRA Unlikely To Oppose Ban On Private Gun Sales

Carl Spitzer Winblows at lavabit.com
Fri Feb 22 15:11:22 MST 2013


<http://www.examiner.com/article/nra-unlikely-to-strongly-fight-private-sales-ban-unless-pushed-to-do-so?CID=examiner_alerts_article> 

NRA unlikely to strongly fight private sales ban unless pushed to do so
        
      * gun show loophole
      * January 22, 2013
      * By: Kurt Hofmann
      * Subscribe


Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private
sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall
not be infringed--far easier to pass than banning so-called "assault
weapons" (gun banner-speak for "regime change rifles") or "high
capacity" magazines (gun banner-speak for "standard capacity magazines")
will be.

If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it
looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many
supposedly "pro-gun" Republicans have historically supported private
sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun
feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates' less
stalwart "allies" in Congress.

Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is
quite willing to trade Americans' right to privately buy and sell
firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay
before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every
other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right
of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Hill, in an article titled
"NRA chief 'generally supportive' of strong background checks" has video
of Keene appearing on CBS This Morning, where he discussed the NRA's
surrender terms:


        At the gun shows, we suggested to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
        and Firearms some years ago, if they want everybody that makes
        an exchange there checked, all they have to do is provide a
        booth and do it. They said, "No, we weren't interested in that;
        we weren't going to fund it."
        


Keene was not finished. He elaborates:


        But as a general proposition, the NRA has been very supportive
        of doing background checks on purchasers through the instant
        system, and secondly, of adding the potentially violently
        mentally ill to the database, which most states and the federal
        government have up to now not done. The President now says he'll
        do that, and that's good.
        


Not only is the NRA apparently willing to accept--and even advocate--an
infringement that Mike Vanderboegh, of Sipsey Street Irregulars,
frequently characterizes by pointing out that "not even King George the
Third was so grasping," he also does not appear particularly concerned
about the threat of a "blanket dragnet" for disarming the supposedly
"mentally ill."

Keene also did not challenge the claim (repeated by his interviewer)
that "40% of gun sales occur without a background check." This claim,
made by nearly every forcible citizen disarmament from President Obama
himself on down, is looking more and more dubious by the minute.

John Fund, writing for the National Review, makes several observations:


        The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks —
        which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person
        survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton
        administration. . . .
        
        If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey
        simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a
        licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do
        background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were
        counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who
        went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types,
        had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.”
        


The article quotes economist and gun policy researcher John Lott as
suspecting that the actual percentage is likely in single digits. Even
the generally reliably anti-gun Washington Post has little patience for
the "40%" claim.

It is St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner's position that the statistics do
not particularly matter. If 100% of gun sales were without background
checks, that would be just fine (sounds a whole lot more like shall not
be infringed, and is in keeping with National Gun Rights Examiner David
Codrea's oft-stated position that, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a
gun cannot be trusted without a custodian").

Still, given the anti-gun extremists' insistence on trotting out the
bogus "40%" figure, they apparently believe their argument would be
weakened by the much lower figure they would be stuck with if they
limited themselves to reality.

For the NRA president not to even question that figure (or the fact that
a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that fewer than 1% of "crime
guns" come from gun shows) seems close to a dereliction of duty. The
increasingly likely looking prospect of abject surrender on the issue
would be still much worse than that.

With NRA membership surging, leadership (if that's not too kind a term)
appears poised to beat a hasty retreat. It's time for them to grow a
spine--and they had better hurry--and they will only do so if we demand
it. Drop them a line.


-- 
ObombA did not win erection, Trotskite RINO Mitt Romney threw the
election.  -- Rush Limbaugh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130222/c2c3c342/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list