“This has, in one seismic moment,” said The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, “shifted the burden of proof from the tin foil-behatted to the government.”

The post Newslink: “Barack Trek: Into Darkness” appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

The post Awesome new NRA Women YouTube short appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

The post Natalie Foster of Girls Guide to Guns to Pres. Obama: “Break the Cycle” appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

by True Tourtillott via The Damn True Experiment

Anyone who has been a sports fan for any length of time knows how statistics can be used to make a false argument about a player or to find “hidden value” in a player that by appearances might seem less attractive to a team. A great example of the former would be a Pitchers Win/Loss totals or in football, the Quarterback Rating. Neither of which by itself is a reliable metric of a player’s value. There are some examples of the latter found in modern “Advanced” statistics such as WAR, BABip etc that can show a player to be of greater or lesser value than he seems to the naked eye.

In sports as in many other areas of “debate” statistics can be very useful. Provided the data set is of sufficient size to provide a representative sample, provided the statistic actually measures what is being evaluated and provided the statistic is being accurately represented. Equally, statistics can be used to distort the truth – particularly if the above provisions are ignored or not met and that is the topic of this post.

The post Sandy Hook Gun Control debate rages on in many states but has thankfully due to cooler heads prevailing, lost steam at the National level. There were two widely repeated statistics used by the Anti-Second Amendment crowd that I’d like to discuss.

40% of all gun sales are completed without a background check.

90% of Americans (including gun owners) support background checks.

It’s important I think to first point out the origin of these statistics before discussing how they’ve been used to distort the truth. The 40% stat comes from a 1997 report by the Institute of Justice written by Phillip Cook (Duke University) and Jens Ludwig (University of Chicago). The report is based on a 1994 survey that contained among others a question regarding firearm transfers (NOT sales – that’s important) in 1993 and 1994.

The question asked in the survey was if the firearm was obtained from a licensed dealer. The affirmative responses totaled ~64% meaning that ~35% did not obtain their firearms from a licensed dealer. They then rounded the figure up and made the assertion that “40% of firearms are not purchased from licensed dealers.”

The rounding is not the problem here. The question (validity of the metric) the data set (adequate sample size) and representation, however are.

The question is a problem in that it asks if the firearm was obtained from a dealer which sounds benign enough until you delve deeper into the study. In looking at the data of the survey it shows that a significant number of the acquisitions were from gifts, inheritances and prizes and that removing those from the totals brings the number from “40%” to 26.4% that were actually obtained by purchase from a non licensed dealer.

The data set too causes problems with the validity of the statistic. This survey was a random-digit-dial survey of 251 people with a response rate of ~50%. The sample size is 251. No, seriously. 251.

The last problem with this is in how it’s presented and what its supposed to be representative of. The salient point in that is the timing of the survey and subsequent report. Follow along with the timeline here……Again, the report was published in 1997. The study took place in 1994. Why are those dates relevant? Quite simply, because the “Brady Bill” was enacted in 1994. One of its components, the creation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) wasn’t launched until November of 1998.

The survey covers a statistically irrelevant sample size of gun transfers (not sales) that occurred BEFORE there was a legal mandate for background checks on firearm sales. The survey asks too few people the wrong question, at the wrong time.

The 40% number is often used to support the assertion of the “Gun Show Loophole”. To assume that it’s true (which it clearly isn’t)requires a pretty massive suspension of disbelief. In 2012 alone there were 19.6 Million firearms purchased via licensed dealers using the NICS system. So what the anti-gunners are trying to tell you is that an additional 12 Million firearms were sold by private face to face sales. Why on earth would vendors pay for a booth at a gun show, surrounded by competitive dealers if 40% of the people in attendance were there to buy guns privately? Because it isn’t true. Which begs the question of why would anti-Second Amendment advocates misrepresent irrelevant and outdated data to support their position? Because it isn’t a position, it’s an agenda.

The second statistic bears equal scrutiny – “90% of Americans (including gun owners) support background checks.”

The source of this statistic is a CBS/New York Times poll of 1110 people conducted in early January of 2013. Though an awfully small sample size it does appear that the poll itself was conducted properly. However there remains a problem. The most obvious problem here is with the question and how the results are misrepresented. In this case it is a question that assumes the answer. The question asked in the poll was:

“Do you think anyone buying a firearm at a gun show should undergo a background check?”

Setting aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of firearm purchases made at gun shows are transacted through FFL (Federal Firearms License) Dealers and thus ARE accompanied by NICS background checks, the question omits the actual topic under discussion – Universal Background Checks. The question is intentionally worded in such a way as to provide a desired answer. The poll didn’t ask;

“Do you support Universal Background Checks on ALL firearms transfers AND the full National firearms registration that the DOJ states would be required in order to enforce the program?” 

This is a question that undoubtedly would provide a much different answer. Thus, the poll provides an intentionally misleading result and should not be considered relevant.

With regard to how the result of the poll, however attained, is represented we’ve only to look at some of the sound bytes that have come out of Washington over the last few months.

“90% of NRA members support our proposal” ~Joe Biden

• Actually, the poll says 85% of NRA members support background checks. The proposal Biden refers to is for Universal Background checks which the poll did not specifically identify.

“Right now, 90 percent of Americans — 90 percent — support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. Think about that. How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?” ~President Obama

• Again, the politician refers to a poll result that asks a question that is not specific to the assertion being made. Disingenuous and highly misleading.

“90% of Americans support this bill” ~ Sen Joe Manchin

• The Senator refers to the “Toomey Manchin” background check expansion bill which would broaden NICS to all firearm transfers. The Bill was not mentioned in the CBS/NYT poll as it had not yet been written.

As alluded to above, the greater concern here is how this statistic is used. When a politician stands before us and makes a claim such as this (regardless of the validity of the statistic) they are using argumentum ad populum. This is a logical fallacy that concludes that the proposition is true or just because many or most people agree with it. It is used in much the same way as geocentrics used consensus to suppress heliocentrics such as Galileo, the way the early church used consensus to brand Da Vinci a heretic and the way those opposed to emancipation used consensus to argue against the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution.

Using consensus as a means of forming public policy or codification of law is an example of “pure democracy” a model that is not allowed for by virtue of how the Constitution is constructed. While there are examples of it’s use at the State and Local levels,(California’s public initiative process as an example) it is not and should not be a matter of course at the National level. To do so sets us on a very slippery slope that I rather think we shouldn’t tread for were we to depend entirely upon consensus, or “mob rule” the 13^th Amendment would not have passed, nor would have suffrage for blacks and women.

If you tell me you are opposed to the Second Amendment because you just don’t like guns or you are afraid of them or you just don’t think people have a need for them that’s fine. I can respect your statement of opinion and values even if I wholeheartedly disagree with them. But when you, or a politician begins using logical fallacy, intentionally misleading statistics or outright falsehoods to support the anti-Second Amendment agenda the respect ends.

The post Newslink: Lies, Damned Lies and (Gun Control) Statistics appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

Dear Gun Control Democrats:

It’s been less than a week since national gun control in America died. No “assault weapons” ban. No “high-capacity” magazine ban. Not even the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise that, according to Senator Mark Kirk, was reached by getting drunk on a 54-foot mega-yacht namedBlack Tie, which is part-owned by Manchin.

Over the last several days, I’ve watched Democratic politicians, lobbyists and Facebook meme-sharers calling down shame on the senators who voted against every single gun control measure proposed in the Senate. Yes, it’s true that none of the measures would have passed the Republican-controlled House anyway, but to have lost in the Democrat-controlled senate was to truly be trounced. I have seen the Democratic pundits all over the nation looking across their podiums and well-lit television studio desks with stunned expressions. “How could this have happened,” they all ask? Only four months after Newtown?

I write this letter as someone who is politically far left of center. You and I have a lot in common, though you may not want to admit it by the end of this article. I think it’s time we had a talk.

I live in the state of Virginia, a place where it’s not easy to be a leftist. Just last week, our State Board of Health voted to approve TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) regulations that would close most abortion clinics in the state. It was a devastating loss for myself and other organizers, and it will be even more devastating to the women of Virginia, most of whom will not have access to safe, legal abortions for years to come. I mention this not only so that you have context for the sort of political work I’m involved in, but because I want you to know that *I do know*, from very recent experience, what it’s like to feel powerless as you watch a group of people vote for social policy that you think is absolutely insane.

But I’ll be honest with you: I watched the Senate votes live on Wednesday, and when these gun-related bills were defeated, I literally celebrated. Obviously, you and I have a lot in common, but plenty to differ on. And that’s kind of what I want to talk to you about.

I’ve owned guns since childhood, and it’s an issue that I’ve thought and written a lot about. It’s very difficult for me to communicate with the mainstream Democratic establishment about guns. But because I know how painful it sometimes is to listen to Republican and other Right-leaning people talk about things that we on the Left care strongly about, I thought I would try to help you out.

There are are a few things that you can do to improve your game in the gun control debate, and I thought it would only be fair to point out what they are. So here’s my best shot. Here are the things that you MUST keep in mind if you wish to further the dialogue on gun policy in America.

1. Stop Sending Mixed Messages

I wish I had a dollar for every Democratic politician and commentator that has looked into a television camera over the past few months and said, “No one is trying to take your guns away!”

Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.

Firstly, when your politicians are asked, “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” as Obama was in his 1996 Senate campaign, you should never answer “Yes,” as Obama did. Publicly advocating a ban on all handguns is not the way to convince people that you’re not interested in banning guns. Furthermore, when you are campaigning for president, never say the phrase “I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry,” as Obama did in 2004. This gives people the impression that your intention is to prevent the states from setting reasonable guidlelines on who can defend themselves outside of their home.

If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities – Chicago and D.C. – in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed,citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren’t interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you’re most likely to be killed by a gun in.)

It has become almost cliché for smirking Democrats to attempt to ridicule and stereotype people like myself by crooning, “Obama wants to take our guns!” in a stereotyped hillbilly drawl – something particularly offensive to some folks here in the south – when in fact, Obama has said exactly that.

Some of you will argue that regardless of the President’s conflicted/dishonest assertions, the legislation that died in Senate earlier this week had nothing to do with taking anything. But let us not forget the “assault weapons” ban, which enacted slow confiscation over a generation. I wouldn’t have to immediately surrender any firearms, but because of theangle of the grip on the shotgun I own, it would be a felony offense to pass it on to a family member (or anyone else) upon my death. It would instead be confiscated by the government and presumably destroyed.

The same would happen to tens of millions of firearms all over the country, including more than 3 million of just one single model, the AR-15. In this case, gun control advocates literally want to pry the most popular rifle in the country from every owner’s cold dead hands. “We’re not taking any guns away from you, just all future generations.” Needless to say, this is not the way to convince people that no one is interested in taking guns away.

This sort of message and legislation has come not just from the president, but on down the chain of command. We have known that the ideal scenario (and presumably ultimate goal) for Dianne Feinstein – sponsor of the assault weapons ban and most outspoken advocate for all of the defeated legislation – has always been a total, door-to-door confiscation of firearms. She told us so in a 60 Minutes interview.

”If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in!’ – I would have done it. I could not do that.”

But it’s not just the Democratic leadership. Cultural icons of the Left have also joined the fray. On Real Time with Bill Maher, the host wanted to know why Democratic leaders are pretending that they believe in the second amendment, when they ought to just come out and say what they mean:

“Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said, which is the Second Amendment is bullshit. Why doesn’t anyone go at the core of it?”

Every episode of the show is watched by 1 – 1.5 million (almost entirely Democratic) viewers, and the studio audience cheered his comment. Chilling. The followup comment is that the ballot box is our guarantee of liberty. Ask Germany (and countless others) how that worked out for them.

It is important to note that according to the Supreme Court (and most Americans), the views espoused by Obama, Feinstein, Maher, et all are unconstitutional. Is it really so difficult to understand why some folks might think that Democrats are just being politicians by giving lip-service to the second amendment while pushing new legislation? Taken collectively, these and many other open confessions by party members are more than probable cause for suspicion of intent. Constitutional voters don’t have to be ignorant or fearful to sound the alarm about these people. They just have to take them at their word and actions.

You can either tell people that you’re not interested in taking guns and stop thinking of ways to take them, or try to abolish the second amendment (good luck). But you cannot do both.

2. You Have To Understand What You’re Regulating

This is common sense for any sort of regulation, but especially when you’re dealing with something specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it has not been the case.

New rule: If you don’t know how guns work, you don’t get to craft legislation about them. There is nothing so embarrassing as watching a Democratic politician who has never held a gun in their life attempt to talk about why and how they should be regulated.

This is not a new problem. I included this classic video in my article on the assault weapons ban, which shows how a senator doesn’t even understand what’s in her own legislation.

Added to the list over the past several months has been die-hard gun control advocate New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg not understanding the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

”Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. With an assault weapon you basically hold it down and it goes ::machine gun noise::”

This is a man that has built a cornerstone of his career on gun control legislation. He has headed and commissioned panels on guns. He runs a whole group of pro-gun-control mayors. This is an issue he has supposedly been devoted to for a long time.

He doesn’t know how guns operate. He doesn’t understand basic terminology. He doesn’t know what an “assault weapon” is, even though he supposedly was involved in drafting legislation. How is this possible? And how is it possible that we who actually understand the topic are supposed to cede to his judgment on it?

He’s not alone in his utter baffledness about this. Obama recently told donors at a Democratic Congressional Campaign committee meeting that students at Sandy Hook were gunned down by a “fully automatic weapon”. From the White House transcript:

”I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”

This is the President of the United States, who has been personally touring the country pretending to understand the issue of how guns function in society. This person has had entire panels and committees at his disposal specifically to educate him on this topic (so we’re told). There is no excuse for ignorance of this magnitude to be centered around conversations involving civil rights specifically enshrined in the constitution. (It is either astounding ignorance or dishonesty. I’m being generous and assuming the former.)

But the award for atomic facepalm goes squarely to Democratic representative Dianne DeGette of Colorado. During one of the many public forums on gun control that took place across the country recently, Dianne explained to the panel and a stunned audience that magazines and ammunition were the same thing, and therefore all the “high-capacity” magazines would soon be used up.

This person is making laws about the very thing she is completely ignorant of. How can people who actually understand the issue be brought to the table and expect to have productive, meaningful conversation when the people sitting across from them are this clueless?

These are a few selected, higher-profile incidents that represent a vast culture of ignorance in the mainstream Democratic left when it comes to even the basics of gun use and policy. I shouldn’t have to say it, but: Until people know what they’re talking about, none of us should care what they have to say.

3. Stop Using Children

It was the dead children of Newtown that were intoned as the push for gun control legislation began. As I have just evidenced, it was the dead children intoned during the drumming up of support. And it was the dead children intoned in Obama’s “concession” speech as every gun control measure in the Senate failed.

And let’s not forget ads like this one:

Fortunately for America, the FBI says that citizens of all ages are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed with a rifle of any kind – not just “assault” rifles. In fact, you are more than twice as likely to be killed be hands and feet than rifles of any kind, and about 5 times more likely to be killed by a knife.

What about unintentional firearms deaths? Fortunately for children, the National Safety Council says that they are less likely to be accidentally killed by any firearm than most other causes of death. Children ages 0-19 (which technically includes two years of life that aren’t childhood) are about 8 times more likely to drown or be poisoned, 4 times as likely to be killed by smoke or fire and almost 50 times more likely to be killed in a car accident.

Aside from the fact that a statistically insignificant number of children die from firearms, not a single person who advocated these gun control measures has suggested a way in which any of the proposed legislation could possibly have prevented the massacre in Newtown. (None of it would have.) Which could make someone wonder, “What’s with all the talk about kids?”

Children are no longer just pawns in the gun control story. They are now integral players. Sometimes the stories play out like Obama’s photo-op above. Sometimes they were never supposed to be stories in the first place.

A father in Florida was furious recently when his fourth grade son brought home this colorful page:

The teacher seemed to gotten the idea of this little gem from Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, who asked for all schools nationwide to advocate an “anti-gun message” every single day. “Every day, every school at every level… We need to do this every day of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Such an anti-gun fever pitch has been reached that very young children are now being suspended and expelled from school for pointing fingers and saying “pow” on the playground, chewing a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, pretending a chicken nugget was a gun and shooting bubbles from a Hello Kitty bubble gun.

As I’m writing this, news has broken of a middle school student suspendedand arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school.

Recently a man’s house was raided after he posted a photo of his 11-year-old son – who had a hunting license – safely handling a .22 rifle. The father was a certified firearms instructor, an NRA range safety officer, and a New Jersey hunter education instructor. His house was raided without a warrant and the state threatened to take his children away.

How far we have come.

In some areas of the country, children are not props in a game of political football, but are giving testimony before their state legislatures about why new gun control measures are a terrible idea, like this 15-year-old who shoots those evil AR-15s every day.

In some areas of the country, children are given proper handling and safety training the way I was as a child, and are capable of safely handling rifles and “assault weapons” to defend their homes and family.

Most Americans know when they’re being emotionally played for political gain, and so do the senators who voted against the barrage of legislation that went down in flames this week. Until you can stop marching children as your cause celeb for no apparent logical reason, and until you propose legislation that at least has something to do with protecting them, no one is going to listen.

4. Stop Pretending Background Checks Don’t Already Exist.

Yes, it’s true that 90% of Americans like background checks for firearms purchases. Well it’s a good thing we have them! If you go to a sporting goods store and buy any firearm, you have to get a background check done. If you buy a gun from almost any table at a gun show, you have to have a background check. If you buy a gun across state lines on the internet, it has to go through a licensed FFL dealer who runs a background check. The same goes for Wal-Mart, flea market dealers, and everywhere else.

The “gun show loophole” you’ve heard so much about simply means that private individuals can sell a gun to each other without asking the federal government for permission. Which is to say that I don’t have to get involved in running a federal background check on a family member or friend to whom I would like to lend my shotgun for a hunting trip.

Background checks are a relatively new priority for Obama’s Justice Department, which only prosecuted 44 of the 48,000 felons and fugitives that submitted background checks to purchase a firearm (and were denied because of the functioning system) in 2012. When the NRA pointed out this out to Biden, the Vice President explained that they “simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form”.

Then how, pray tell, is adding to that number thousands of private transaction between individuals (who are already inherently law-abiding by filing the paperwork) going to help?

Aside from practicality and enforceability concerns, there are the ever-present privacy concerns. The Democratic left got a rude awakening from allies on this topic when the ACLU came out against universal background checks, citing the record keeping on law-abiding citizens as a “significant” privacy concern:

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice noted in a recent internal memo that the effectiveness of universal background checks would “require gun registration”. (It also went on to note that “gun buybacks are ineffective”, that a high-capacity magazine ban wouldn’t have any discernible effect, that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime”, and that even a complete elimination of all “assault” weapons “would not have a large impact on gun homicides”.)

When your own Department of Justice thinks your ideas are bad ones, it’s time to move on.

But the ACLU and Department of Justice are not alone in their rejection of universal background checks. Recently, the most comprehensive survey ever conducted on the views of 15,000 law enforcement professionals asked about the relationship between recently-dead legislation proposals and violent crime. Here are four of the questions and their responses:

These figures speak for themselves. When both the nation’s police force and the American Civil Liberties Union (and common sense to boot) disagree with you wholeheartedly, you might want to rethink your strategy.

5. Treat the NRA As What They Are: Other American Citizens

The story from the media – and certainly from your Democratic leadership – is that the “powerful corporate lobby” of the NRA is so indomitable that they single-handedly bought and scared off politicians from supporting legislation that they actually believed was going to do some good. But aside from the questionable legislation, this narrative still falls short.

After gun control legislation was defeated this week, I opened a friend’s Facebook link to an article on thinkprogress.org, a popular leftist news and opinion site. The full screen poll that popped up before I could read the article asked: “DOES THE NRA CONTROL CONGRESS?” along with an urgent call to sign up for their mailing list to email-shame politicians.

The problem here is the complete dissociation of the NRA as an entity and its membership base. As someone who participated wholeheartedly in the Occupy movement and in the national campaign to expose ALEC – the group of Right-wing politicians and corporate lobbyists who write laws together – I have no love for the influence of money on politics. But by making this narrative the dominant one, the Democratic left has missed a very, very important fact: the power of the NRA lies not in corporations, but in its membership.

The NRA definitely receives some contributions from the firearms manufacturers whose interests are tied up with their own. Of course they do. That’s how lobbying works: you pay people to take the time to represent your interests well to lawmakers, whether you’re a gunmaker contributing to the NRA or a high school teacher’s union paying The American Federation of Teachers lobbyists.

What you’re missing is that the vast portion of the NRA’s funds come not through corporate donors, but through contributions from average Americans. It was not a coincidence that between December 2012 and January 2013 the NRA grew 10,000 members every day, adding a full quarter-million new contributors to their roster since gun control reappeared in the national discussion last year. That’s just what happens when a populace that cares a lot about something gets mobilized. But the NRA – by which the Democratic party should mean “the American citizens who comprise the NRA because they believe in gun rights” – has consistently been characterized as the heartless, monolithic boogeyman.

I have already mentioned the young man who was just this week suspended and arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school. How is this possible? How can the demonization of 5 million Americans engaged in strictly legal activity literally put a child in jail in 2013?

I hope that one thing this latest loss has taught you is that you cannot advance the discussion on gun policy by treating the NRA as if they were something other than the citizens who intentionally pay for them to do exactly what they do. (Even if members do have to grit their teeth at brash methods sometimes.) Your opponent is not the corporate profits of Ruger or Beretta, it is the beliefs and ideas and the resulting money of other citizens just like yourself. Speaking of which…

6. Don’t Forget About Us!

Gun policy is not really as partisan a debate as mainstream media would suggest. There are plenty of left-leaning citizens and Democratic voters who love our guns. Some of us are in the south, some of us are out in Colorado, and some of us are right in the middle of New York City. Some of us not only like the process of shooting guns, but actually think that it’simportant to know how. Some of us hunt to supplement food/income. Some of us believe that the safety of our selves, families, communities and yes, even our nation are our own responsibility as citizens. It’s not such a radical thought.

aAnd don’t forget that we are the swing voices in this debate. After the mass shooting in Aurora, I posted an article on why the “assault weapons” ban should not be renewed. Much to my surprise, it garnered a half million reads. This was not because I’m a great writer. This was because it spoke to other leftist people with gun-interests in a way that an NRA newsletter was not going to. And those people shared it with their leftist friends, and so on.

You cannot pretend that we don’t exist, and you cannot be surprised when we let our representatives know that we do not support gun control legislation.

The post Newslink: Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

Help Illinois go shall-issue! CALL CALL CALL the members of the Illinois House and tell them that:

1. You are an Illinois Carry supporter.

2. They should VOTE YES on HB997.

IL House roster / contact info: http://www.ilga.gov/reports/rptMemberList.asp?gaid=12&ChamberId=H

Make sure to call at least these reps:

The post FPC Fire Mission: Help Illinois Go Shall-Issue Carry — YES ON HB997! appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

The post Mr. Colion Noir: What Gun Show Loophole? appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

With the gun control efforts we’re facing at the national level, and in the face of a senate that fought us tooth an nail, West Virginians are starting to realize that Colorado can happen here. And West Virginia is standing up, speaking out, and fighting to prevent it.

WVCDL members Amber Perry and Joanna Kirkpatrick spent most of last night in the Senate Gallery observing the votes and waiting on the Preemption / Home Rule bill to come to the floor. Both experienced an interesting phenomenon. They were met with constant stares and glares from the Senate floor. Some were looks of curiosity. Some were looks of fear. And some were stares of outright malice. And while this was happening, the same thing was happening to myself, BoD member Jereomy Schulz, and members Beth Thaxton and Donna Holstein from the floor of the House.

Why am I including this? I am including it because the reason they were staring at us is relevant. They know our t-shirts and our logo. And they know our shirts and our logo because of you. They have seen us on the news. They have seen us in the streets. And they have seen us in their halls and offices. And they know we are awake, aware, and we are watching. There is indisputable proof that you, our members and supporters, have, are, and will make a profound difference in the defense of our liberty.

With states like Colorado, New York, and Maryland handing over their liberty for a false promise of safety, West Virginians are sending a message to Washington DC.

The message:

WE ARE NO LONGER ON THE DEFENSE.

WE ARE FIGHTING BACK AND WE ARE DETERMINED.

You made history this session. Take pride in your efforts. Revel in your victory. And soon, prepare to buckle down, because winning a battle does not mean winning a war. There is much left to do.

What have we won?

Five bills passed our legislature.

HB2471: Speaker Rick Thompson’s bill prevents firearms or ammunition confiscations during a time of emergency. This is the “Hurricane Katrina” bill. Jackbooted thugs will not be allowed to storm your home and confiscate your firearms during a state of emergency as happened during Hurricane Katrina.

SB369: Senator John Unger’s bill makes it legal for the Attorney General to enter into a concealed carry reciprocity agreement with any state that is willing to sign. It takes away onerous restrictions we placed on other states, making them ineligible to join with us. At the least, I would expect this to allow the AG’s office to add Georgia and Alabama to our list of reciprocal states.

HB2866: Delegate Bill Hamilton’s bill makes a change to the 500 foot rule. It is currently illegal in West Virginia to discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a building or structure. There is no exception for your own house. So if your nearest neighbor is six miles away, it would still be illegal to shoot within 500 feet of your own house. This bill makes an exception for your own property, as long as no one else’s house or structure is within 500 feet of you. It is a simple change, but it makes sense and is long overdue.

HB2431: Delegate Rupie Phillips bill cleans up the CCW process, and allows for people with old and expunged disqualifying convictions a path to restoring their Second Amendment rights.

A NOTE TO VETERANS ON 2431:

This bill contained a provision to exempt West Virginia’s veterans from the CCW permit fees. This exemption was stripped from the bill by the West Virginia Senate. Senator Corey Palumbo stood in the Senate chamber crying the blues about the poor county sheriffs who will lose so much money. Corey Palumbo doesn’t mind taking money from the pockets of those who have signed a blank check for their very lives on his behalf, because sheriff Snuffy needs a new Glock.

SB435: This bill has a long and twisting story. This bill originally started life as Herb Snyder’s home rule bill. But as most of us know, Delegate Rupie Phillips introduced HB2760 which is statewide preemption. 2760 passed the house near unanimously, and then was unceremoniously killed by Senators Kessler, Snyder, and Palumbo. It looked as if all hope was lost, until home rule passed from the senate to the house. In the house, Delegate Patrick Lane amended the home rule bill to include the full text of 2760. This placed the senate in a bit of a pickle. If they wanted home rule (and my did they) they got preemption too for home rule cities.

The senate hated it, and they hated us for it, but they swallowed their pride and passed SB435 with home-rule cities preempted from nearly all gun ordinances. What will remain:

- Home rule cities may enact carry bans on city hall and municipal courts.

- Home rule cities may prohibit open carry on city parks and other city property, but they MAY NOT prohibit concealed carry with a permit.

- Home rule cities may not restrict how many, or how often you can buy firearms.

- Home rule cities may not restrict the sale of firearms.

Governor Tomblin has expressed some displeasure in the media regarding preemption and home rule. We expect he will sign all of the gun bills from this session, as failure to do so may be political suicide. I doubt he’s willing to fall on his sword on preemptoin for Corey Palumbo and Danny Jones, but we will see.

And now a sad note about every single one of these bills. And I write this with tears welling in my eyes.

Each of these bills over the past six years was originally written and pushed at various times by WVCDL founder, past president, treasurer, and legislative director, the late Jim Mullins. Wherever Jim is, I hope he is proud of what we have done with his organization.

Who Stood With us?

Remember that any politician is only as good as his last and next votes. And we have some representatives who are due credit.

Our Delegate of the Year award, if we had one, would without question go to Delegate Patrick Lane (R-Kanawha). Delegate Lane’s insertion of preemption into the home rule bill was a stroke of strategic genius.

Speaker Rick Thompson (D-Wayne) stood for the residents of Wayne County and fought for preemption tooth and nail. He took on the Senate on our behalf, and fought the fight. When the senate killed preemption a second time by rejecting Patrick Lane’s amendment, the Speaker appointed conference committee members who were willing and able to stand for our rights. Delegates Swartzmiller (D-Hancock), Morgan (D-Hancock), and Azinger (R-Wood) held the line in a contentious conference committee and defended our rights. They did so on behalf of the House leadership.

Delegate Rupie Phillips (D-Logan) introduced two pro-gun bills which ultimately passed in some form. Delegate Phillips fought the fight behind the scenes tirelessly. Every day this session the fight was fought on the behalf of the citizens of Logan county, and all West Virginians. Delegate Phillips did great service of liberty during this session.

Delegate Mark Hunt (D-Kanawha) is from a county that is subject to ragingly anti-liberty, anti-gun press from the Charleston Newspapers, West Virginia Media Holdings (Bray Cary’s State Journal and multiple WV Television Stations). He stood on the House floor and took on the Charleston Gazette directly. Delegate Hunt did what is right for us, despite the media attacks he faced, and will continue to face as a result.

Delegates Tim Armstead (R-Kanawha), Josh Nelson (R-Boone), Larry Faircloth (R-Berkeley), Mike Folk (R-Berkeley), and most of the Republican Caucus stood with us in the House. Their contributions were often both public and direct, as well as work behind the scenes.

Who Stood Against us?

The list of legislators that stood against us is short, but unfortunately, very powerful.

Jeff Kessler (D-Marshall) is the President of the Senate, and fought against your right to bear arms in the form of preemption tooth and nail, only to finally admit defeat and cast a yes vote at the very last second.

Senator Corey Palumbo (D-Kanawha) vocally stood against you and applied political pressure to try to kill preemption at every turn.

Senator Herb Snyder (D-Jefferson) stood against you by being the one to kill the full preemption bill in the Government Organization committee. Further, he complained of “threats,” and blamed the WVCDL directly for them. Yet, there is not one arrest. There is not one indictment. There is not one shred of proof that these alleged “threats” were anything other than manufactured as an excuse for the two above to trample your liberty.

Charleston Mayor Danny Jones expended every penny of political capital he could muster in a failed attempt to prevent preemption from coming out of the legislature. He said to the Charleston Gazette, “I don’t think the power of these people is real.”

What now, Danny?

The Charleston Gazette did nearly as I predicted. When preemption passed the house, I predicted that the Gazette would run an anti-gun diatribe per day, through the end of the session. I was off, but only by a small percentage. There were two or three days when they didn’t actually run one. But they made up for it by running two on some days.

Bray Cary and his West Virginia Media Holdings, including multiple publications and multiple news stations fought us at every turn with biased coverage. Bray went as far as to imitate Mike Bloomberg and go to gun shows, attempting to do some sensational “investigative reporting.” The problem with Bray Cary, however, is that he destroyed any shred of his own personal credibility on his own show with me in December. Go away, Bray. No one’s listening to you anymore.

What Happens Now?

I expect the Governor to sign all of the gun bills.

The WVCDL will remember that any elected representative is only as good as his last and next votes.

The WVCDL will continue the fight to educate the voters of Senate Districts 2 (Kessler), and 16 (Snyder) about their representatives fighting against their right to keep and bear arms tooth and nail.

The WVCDL will be scheduling a state-wide meeting in the next couple of months to get together, fellowship, and discuss the legislative session.

The WVCDL will be forming a Political Action Committee to get us into the fight another way.

The WVCDL will be scheduling meetings around the state for to recruit membership and support to the cause.

Food for Thought

(This will be a running footnote for a while)

I have personal friends in Colorado who five years ago, would never have believed it could happen to them.

Think about that.

Keith Morgan

President,
West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

The post WVCDL Reports: Historic Victory! appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

In a viral video of a Portland, Oregon Lincoln Day dinner address to promote the recently-released Manchin-Toomey ”Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act” background check bill, Mr. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, made a number of curious remarks, including this one about gun shows:

“I can’t justify morally, that a person who walks into a gun show, buys a gun from somebody, without getting his name, the guy can hardly speak English, and walk through the door with that firearm, with no check, nothing at all. It goes on every day at every gun show.”

We share Mr. Gottlieb’s goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those ineligible to possess firearms, like violent criminals and mentally ill people. However, it’s perplexing that it would be suggested – incorrectly – that gun shows have some substantive nexus with crime. (We would also offer that the language spoken by a gun buyer is immaterial to the analysis and that the new gun rights culture enjoys diverse support and wide socioeconomic, political, and ethnic representation.)

For instance, in California, all private sales of firearms – at gun shows and otherwise – must be conducted through a firearms dealer that is licensed by both the federal government and the State of California (and, in most cases, by local authorities as well). Each private firearm transfer is processed through the State’s Dealers Record of Sale (DROS) system and every gun purchaser or transferee is subjected to a rigorous background check that goes far beyond the federal NICS program. Even more, the buyer or transferee’s firearm is subject to a 10-day waiting period. ZERO guns sold at California gun shows are lawfully transferred outside these strict requirements except to those explicitly allowed by the State, such as sworn law enforcement officers with identification and an official directive on department letterhead.

In Gottlieb’s home state of Washington, the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC) – for which Gottlieb is a board member – promotes and manages the largest gun shows in the state, “filling up to 1,200 tables” of gun dealers, gun seekers, and collectors peacefully exercising their First and Second Amendment rights in one venue alone. In order to buy a gun at a WAC gun show, one must first be subjected to (and pass) a background check and be a certified WAC member; similarly, one cannot sell any guns to a non-WAC member at a gun show — all transactions have background checks on both sides of the ledger.

Noted historian and scholar Clayton E. Cramer addresses the “gun show loophole” fallacy in his January 18, 2013 article “Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?”, in it saying:

“They [Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Brian A. Jacobs, professors at the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan, respectively] studied murders and suicides in the three weeks following gun shows in these two states. What they found was that suicide and homicide rates in California were unaffected by gun shows; this is not terribly surprising because California prohibits private party sales without background check. (Gun suicides increased, but non-gun suicides fell by the same amount.) In Texas, where there are no restrictions on private party sales, they found that gun homicides actually fell following gun shows, while suicides and non-gun homicides were unchanged.”

That 2008 scholarly paper, “The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas“, can be viewed at http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/oldpapers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf.

In a 1997 (revised 2002) Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report entitled “Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities: Firearm Use by Offenders”, the federal government found that only 0.7% of the firearms used in crimes were acquired through gun show transactions.

In 2010, The Calguns Foundation researched the nexus between the ban on gun shows at public property enacted by the County of Alameda (California) and crime. That organization subsequently filed an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the federal lawsuit Nordyke v. King. The Foundation’s brief, which argued that the County’s gun show ban was unconstitutional, concluded that

“The crime rate data show that the County’s ban on gun shows at the [Alameda] Fairgrounds has not had any perceptible positive impact on either the murder rate or violent crime in Alameda County. The County has witnessed their murder rate increase by 7.13% since enactment of the Ordinance while the 10 County Mean murder rate only increased 0.35% over the same period.

The violent crime rate increased in Alameda County by 2.21% after enactment of the Ordinance while the same violent crime rate decreased by 2.43% over the same period in the 10 County Mean. From this raw data and the associated trends it is obvious that banning gun shows on County property in Alameda County has had no discernable positive effect on public safety in Alameda County.”

While there may be Constitutional ways to ensure that prohibited persons cannot easily acquire firearms through gun transactions outside of well-managed and highly regulated retail establishments like those of our dealer members, misrepresenting the facts about “every gun show” does a disservice to the national conversation on this important issue and our culture of proudly law-abiding, Second Amendment-exercising Americans — even if it is done to promote an alternative federal legal schema that could, in some ways, positively affect gun owners.

It’s possible that Senator Tom Coburn’s proposed free and simple online background check system represents an appropriate vehicle to achieve a goal that everyone agrees on — keeping guns out of hands of the violent and mentally ill — without infringing the fundamental rights of free Americans. Time will tell, and we will consider and judge the measure only after its full text is available.

The bottom line, however, is that the Manchin-Toomey proposal is no more the right solution for America than gun shows are responsible for gun crimes. Where some see it as Christmas tree with a million ornaments, we can’t help but view it for what it is: a big lump of coal.

Brandon Combs is the president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (http://www.calffl.org). CAL-FFL is California’s premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, and education. For more information or to join Cal-FFL, please visit calffl.org.

The post CAL-FFL: The Reality of Gun Shows – Not the Arms Haven for Criminals Claimed By Some appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.

As new talk of expanding Federal background checks raises to a fevered pitch in the US Senate, we think it’s important to go into some detail on CGF’s position.

Some of the debate is moot for those of us in California as we are forced through expensive and duplicative background checks and waiting periods on virtually every firearms transfer. CGF is suing to overturn waiting periods for people the State already knows aren’t prohibited and already own guns. We’re also suing to stop the State from delaying valid purchases by those who aren’t prohibited because the State’s background check database is incomplete.

Even with nearly universal background checks, California still has a higher gun homicide rate than the State of Texas where there are only background checks on commercial sales. However, technology has certainly reached a point where the Federal government could make it very easy, and free, to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons.

Though we certainly like some of the gun owner protections and rights expansions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal, such as those licensed to carry a firearm being able to buy handguns in any state, there are serious issues with the additional costs that the proposal would place on law abiding gun owners.

We’ve advocated for a simple, secure system for making background checks available to private parties and we are cautiously optimistic that Senator Tom Coburn’s proposed amendment parallels that idea. Though the devil is always in the details and we reserve judgment until we read the actual text of the bill, an online buyer self-check system strikes a balance of respecting the Second Amendment and privacy rights while making it easier for the law abiding to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Ideally, these non-retail transfer rules should fully preempt and exempt us from conflicting state laws. California forces friends and even some family members to spend $35 and take three total trips to a gun store to simply gift or sell a firearm. If the buyer or gift recipient has a 30 day background check document from an online government service, a carry license, or any other NICS-backed proof of eligibility like a Certificate of Eligibility, there should be no more cost in time or money to transfer a firearm.

And remember, obtaining a carry license in California is likely to get much more realistic in the 7 or so states that maintain unconstitutional carry license regimes, like ours. Asking responsible gun owners to make sure they aren’t selling a gun to someone prohibited using a process that is fast, free, and simple is not much to ask. We think it would even pass the strict judicial scrutiny that fundamental enumerated rights require.

The Manchin-Toomey proposal, however, is a gift horse we have to look in the mouth. We hope that Senator Coburn will provide the Senate with a more carefully-considered measure.

The post The Calguns Foundation: On Background Checks appeared first on Firearms Policy Coalition.