Lies, damned lies, and political promises

[unixronin]

Remember how Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he supported the Second Amendment, and only wanted "reasonable restrictions" and "common-sense measures"?

Well, he's been President-elect for three days, and his change.gov site has this to say on the subject:

Address Gun Violence in Cities:  As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.  Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.  They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.  They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

We knew it was coming ... and here it comes.  Bend over.

Let's take those points in order, shall we?

1. The Tiahrt Amendment

   What the gun control lobby says:  The Tiahrt Amendment hampers local law enforcement by denying them access to BATF gun trace data.

   The truth:  The Tiahrt Amendment does nothing to deny gun trace information to law enforcement agencies.  It does deny NON-law-enforcement parties the ability to go on "fishing expeditions" through BATF trace data for political ends.  (Most firearms traces performed by the BATF are not related to criminal use of the firearm in any case — one of the most common reasons for BATF traces is to find the legal owners of recovered stolen firearms.  Many persons are named on BATF trace forms merely because they were witnesses to a crime involving a firearm.)  It also enforces a pre-existing provision that National Instant Check System records be promptly destroyed as already required by law, restricts disclosure to third parties of Federal records of lawful gun purchases, and forbids (again) the BATF from creating a computerized Federal gun-owner registry (again, something that has been illegal since 1986).

   An interesting and telling detail:  The gun control lobby's "point man" against the Tiahrt Amendment has been New York City Mayor Bloomberg.  But when Kansas Representative Tiahrt offered to negotiate technical modifications to the language of the Tiahrt Amendment to the extent necessary to address legitimate law-enforcement needs, Bloomberg broke off negotiations.  He wasn't interested.  Because Bloomberg doesn't care about law enforcement needs; he wants to use the data in his quest to be able to sue firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of legally purchased, non-defective firearms.  The City of Chicago wasn't interested in law enforcement either; they wanted a list of every person in the US (not "in Chicago", note, or even "in Illinois") who owned more than one handgun.

2. Closing the gun show loophole

   What the gun control lobby says:  Criminals can go to gun shows and buy guns without having to pass a background check.

   The truth:  Two kinds of gun sales occur at gun shows — dealer business sales, and private person-to-person sales.  A buyer purchasing a gun from a dealer at a gun show must pass a NICS check and fill out a Federal form 4473 exactly as though they had walked into the dealer's store, and the dealer must report that sale to the BATF and must retain the Form 4473 for twenty years exactly as for an in-store purchase.  A buyer and seller making a private person-to-person sale must still comply with all applicable state laws regarding person-to-person transfers.  That means that it is legal to make private person-to-person sales at a gun show if and only if private person-to-person sales are already legal in that state, and while no Federal paperwork is required for person-to-person transfers, buyer and seller must still comply with any applicable state laws.

   In short, there is no gun-show loophole.

   Interesting detail:  Recently a Boston yellow journalist attempted to "prove" the existence of the "gun show loophole" by travelling to New Hampshire to buy a gun at a gun show there.  The dealer wouldn't sell to him because he wasn't a New Hampshire resident.  So he had a friend who lives in New Hampshire purchase a gun for him.  The gun never actually left the friend's possession; if the friend had then given the gun to said journalist, it would have been an illegal straw-man purchase.  The journo then bragged in print about how he'd shown how flawed the law was and proven the existence of the loophole, although the truth was he didn't actually understand the straw-man law well enough to understand he hadn't actually broken it.

   But he had the intent to violate the straw-man law, and the BATF has a poor sense of humor about that.  End result:  Journo and friend are both under BATF investigation on Federal firearms charges.

   So, just where was this loophole, exactly....?

3. "Childproof" guns

   California currently has a bill in the legislature that would mandate that all handguns sole in California be "smart guns" that can only be fired by their authorized owner.  This is what's usually meant when gun control advocates talk about "childproofing" guns.

   There turn out to be a few problems with the idea, though.  You see, the technology to do it doesn't exist.  The one company that's backing the legislation knows that the technology doesn't exist, but they're hoping to get the letgislature to pay for them to develop such a technology which they can then market for other purposes.  In short, they want the State of California to fund their R&D.  Law enforcement agencies hate the idea and have been uniformly opposed to it, because no mechanism has been proposed which (a) cannot be defeated, (b) will work reliably, especially under adverse conditions, and (c) "fails safe".  In fact, it's not possible even to define what "failing safe" is with such a technology.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun fireable, then it can't prevent unauthorized use; all a gun thief need do is break the sensor or remove the battery.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun unfirable, citizens or police officers with "smart guns" could end up dead because their sidearm wouldn't go off when they desperately needed it to.

4. The assault weapons ban

   What the gun control lobby says:  "These weapons belong on foreign battlefields."  "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members."

   The truth:  What the gun control lobby calls an "assault weapon" actually refers mostly to a set of cosmetic features that have no significant effect upon the actual functioning of the gun.  Some, like pistol grips on rifles, have no functional effect other than to make a rifle more comfortable to hold.  Ventilated barrel shrouds, another feature frequently spoken of in tones of fear and hysteria, are a totally cosmetic feature on anything but a fully-automatic weapon (that's "machine gun" to you).  Manufacturers of cheap guns put ventilated barrel shrouds on them to increase their appeal to the Rambo-wannabe set.  "High-capacity magazines"?  How is a pistol with a 12-round magazine more deadly than one with a 10-round magazine?  Is there some natural repulsive force between magazines that makes it impossible for a criminal to carry, say, three ten-round magazines instead of two fifteen-round ones?

   Or how about flash hiders?  The fear-and-loathing story is that flash hiders conceal a shooter's location.  They do no such thing.  What they actually do is help to prevent the muzzle flash of a rifle from dazzling the shooter at night, particularly in automatic fire.  That might become relevant when there are midnight gun-battles with fully-automatic weapons in the streets of L.A.

   Now, a muzzle brake?  A muzzle brake looks almost identical to a flash hider, and reduces recoil forces by redirecting gases at the muzzle.  So, in simplistic terms, it makes it easier to shoot a more powerful rifle.  But a flash hider is on the list of features that make a rifle an "assault weapon", while a muzzle brake isn't.  Go figure, huh?  Still think there's any actual logic behind this "assault weapon" stuff?

   And what's this about "fully automatic"?

   Well, you see, the gun control lobby would like you to think that any ugly black gun is a machinegun that will fire indefinitely as long as the trigger is held down.  But it just ain't so.  A civilian-legal AR15 works just like a Browning or H&K semi-automatic hunting rifle:  You pull the trigger once, you get one shot.  Pull it again, you get another shot.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  "But doesn't that mean you can just spray bullets like a firehose?" you ask.  Well, sure, you can just point in the general direction of the target and yank on the trigger as fast as you can.  We shooters call that "spray and pray".  Because divine intervention is about the only factor that's going to put your rounds on target.  In the words of Major John C. Pilaster, "Two hundred misses per minute isn't firepower.  One hit is firepower."

   The fact is, ever since 1934 it has been illegal to buy, sell or transfer an automatic weapon in the United States without paying a BATF transfer tax, and you must have a Federal Class III license from the BATF in order to do so.  Only one murder has ever been committed in the US with a full-automatic weapon legally purchased after 1934; and that was a police officer who murdered his wife with a Thompson submachinegun that he purchased for police use.  All of the rare crimes committed since then with automatic weapons have one thing in common:  the weapons were already illegal in the first place.  What is making them even more illegal going to do?  Criminals don't obey laws.  That's why we call them criminals.

   "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members"?  Oh, please.  When was the last time you saw a gang member standing on a street corner with an AK47 stuffed down his pants?

   The "assault weapons ban" is bullshit, pure and simple.  Many politicians who support banning "assault weapons" can't even explain what they think one is.  It's an attempt to separate out a group of guns, demonize them, and ban them — then move on to the next group.  That's a process that won't end until every type of gun actually useful for hunting or self-defense has been banned.  At which point the gun control lobby will say, "Well, the guns you have left aren't any use for defense or hunting anyway, so what do you need them for?"  And if you think I'm kidding, that the gun control lobby would never take your deer rifle — hey, if it could penetrate a bulletproof vest (which something like 99.9% of centerfire rifle rounds will) and has even a low-power a telescopic sight (which, at this point, over 90% of hunting rifles do), it's "a deadly sniper rifle".  Hand it over, bud.

Why can't the Democratic Party learn from experience?  The last time the Democratic Party lost control of Congress, it was largely because of voter backlash against one gun control law after another after another.  But here we go again, not even in office yet, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are already starting to talk up the new gun-control laws they're going to pass.  When they say "common-sense measures", they mean keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them ... and they don't think anyone should have them.  It's like a knee-jerk reflex — "Hey, we're in power!  BAN TEH GUNZ0RZ!"

This, by you, is "change"?  From here, it looks like "Democratic Party Business As Usual."

Comments

[gdmusumeci.livejournal.com]

I guess I should finish building that SPR, huh? And maybe buy a dozen more AR lower receivers?

"Send lawyers, guns, and money."

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I hope all my friends who swore up and down he'd never try to ban guns 'cause hey, he said so, are at least properly chagrined.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

And maybe buy a dozen more AR lower receivers?

Good luck. I think everybody is running out and doing the same. Supplies are, uh, low.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That. Several manufacturers are out of stock. Someone commented earlier this morning one distributor he deals with sold 20 million rounds of .223 in the past week.




I'll tell you, I wish I had the disposable income for some preemptive stocking up.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Ah, but he didn't say so. He very carefully avoided saying either yes or no to the question. What he said was, "The votes aren't there." Anyone who can't draw the correct conclusion from that, as to what he'd do if the votes were there, well........

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

amen to that

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07guns.html

Obama Helps Flood The Streets With Guns...Film at 11.

[tommx.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing it doesn't particularly surprise you that I support the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, they know that God put them on earth for a particular purpose . . .

(Democrat, Republican, scratch either and find the same blood. "No matter who you voted for, the Government won.")

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

Oh, an East Coast liberal with that charming off-the-shelf Stock political philosophy. I doubt we'd be surprised by anything in your portfolio of beliefs. Once you've seen one, you've seen them all.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Probably not, but I'd be interested if you could explain what possible gain you think there is to doing so, other than allowing non-law-enforcement groups to go fishing through BATF trace data. Law enforcement can already get access to all the data they need, if and when they need it. The BATF itself has said that trace data is neither valid nor meaningful for the purposes for which gun-control groups typically seek to employ it.

In short, the Tiahrt Amendment did not restrict legitimate use of trace data. What it stopped was misuse of it.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

*nod* not the only place I've seen reports like that one.

[gdmusumeci.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, CWS (http://www.coldwarshooters.net) has a few different manufacturers' lowers in stock, but prices seem to have gone way up. I may wait for a while. Two ARs -- one carbine, one SPR -- is probably enough for me anyways. ;)

[tommx.livejournal.com]

How lovely of you to reduce me to a stereotype. We really need much more of that in this country.

[tommx.livejournal.com]

Because I know you've made a thorough study of the issues, I want to do some rereading of the amendment so I can more accurately tell you what I dislike in it. I doubt you'll agree with my conclusions of course, but I'm not really looking to change anyone's mind.


OK, read through the amendment again. Yeah, I still don't support it. The wording of the amendment says that Law Enforcement can only access the data in this database in the course of an active criminal investigation, and then only to data relevant to their own jurisdiction. This, in my opinion, is a classic flaw in the amendment, and is applicable to the District of Columbia where guns cannot even be purchased. Under this amendment, if a gun used to commit a crime in DC was purchased say in VA, the trace data would be inadmissible in a court of law.

I don't own a gun myself, but if I did (and I have considered it on occasion) I would feel exactly the same way. The reason I have never owned a gun is that I feel no compelling reason to do so, and feel there are several reasons not to own one.

Anyway, we're never going to agree since we clearly do not agree on how this amendment is to be accurately interpreted.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

Well, as an assualt rifle owner in an Interior West state, you and yours already had me stereotyped a long, long time ago. Welcome to The Suck!

[tommx.livejournal.com]

I don't know you, and have not stereotyped you in any way. I simply made a statement about an amendment I don't like.

You, on the other hand, made a snap judgment about me based on your assumptions about how I form my political views. I did not make any assumption about you even after you jumped on me for stating an opinion. Last I checked, the first amendment was still in force in this country. My right to state my opinion is as valid as yours.

Say whatever you want to about me of course, but don't expect me to take you seriously if you make assumptions about how or why I form my opinions.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

Evil Black Guns for the win!

Buy now!

Sell later!!

Profit!!!

Better than gold!

#

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

That's at least the second time I've seen you try to invoke the 1st Amendment, as if I or anyone else was attempting to actually stiffle your right to express your opinion.

Dramatic.

I think you're confusing the freedom of speech with "freedom from being criticized".

[tommx.livejournal.com]

Don't confuse criticism with name calling.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I believe you'll find that the fact the crime was committed in DC makes the data relevant to DC jurisdiction. On the other hand, DC police could not request trace data relevant to a crime committed in, say, Ocean City, Maryland, because the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction. But Ocean City PD could. It's where the crime was committed, not where the gun was bought, that governs applicable jurisdiction for the investigation of the crime.

Now, if Ocean City PD were to discover that prior to its use in the crime, the gun had been stolen — or perhaps fenced — in DC, then DC Police would have jurisdiction and access to trace data to investigate the theft. However, they still wouldn't have jurisdiction over the crime committed in Ocean City.

Thus your objection appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the law.

[tommx.livejournal.com]

You may be right, but that is why I've done research on both sides of the subject, and have not been adequately convinced that the virtues of this amendment (of which I frankly see none) outweigh its deficits. Frankly, I'd rather local law enforcement have the tools it needs to prevent crime rather than prosecute it once it has occurred. I feel this amendment hamstrings them in that regard, particularly with regard to the trafficking of illegal firearms.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Yep, that looks like about $50 more for the stripped lower than what I paid a few months ago.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

When I bought my Glock 19, it came with two reduced-capacity 10-round magazines. Shortly afterward, I purchased three standard-capacity 15-round magazines via mail order. These magazines were manufactured before the AWB went into effect so were legal to sell, purchase, and own. I paid a hundred dollars for each one.

After the AWB expired, the price of 15-round magazines promptly dropped to about 20 to 25 dollars.

Even though the AWB has not yet been reenacted, I bet the price is already on its way back up.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

How do you think that allowing just any random person who asks for it access to trace data helps with illegal firearms trafficking? You can't trace an illegally-traded firearm until it's in your possession and you have the indentifying information on it anyway. If it's not in your possession, you don't know what gun to trace in the first place. Once you've got it, if you don't know it's been illegally traded, you have no reason to trace it in the first place unless you suspect it's been stolen, in which case you have jurisdiction to investigate the theft and you can get trace data. If you do know it's been illegally traded, a crime's been committed, bam, you have jurisdiction. Where's the problem here? It's not like you can ask the BATF for a list of all stolen or illegally sold firearms currently within your jurisdiction. They don't know, because they don't know where the guns are or when one's been illegally sold unless either someone is caught making an illegal sale, or it turns up among other stolen property or in the hands of someone who shouldn't legally have it. The firearm trace database is not a crystal ball or an oracle. You can't get information out of it that isn't there in the first place.

For that matter, the mere fact that a firearm is in the trace data does not mean it has ever been used in a crime or illegally traded. But anti-gun organizations blithely assume that any gun on which trace data exists is automatically somehow criminal in some way.

I really completely fail to see what you're driving at here. So I'll repeat: the Tiahrt Amendment basically does two things:
1. It forbids the BATF from assembling a firearm owners database or keeping NICS records indefinitely, both of which are already illegal, and
2. It prevents people who have no legitimate legal need for trace information from going on open-ended fishing expeditions through the trace data.

Do you have a problem with either of those? Can you actually come up with any convincing example of a legitimate, plausible scenario in which some agency that needs the data for a legitimate purpose (as distinct from "wants it for political ends") is prevented by the Tiahrt Amendment from getting it?