Friday, June 09, 2017

Universal Background Checks & Waiting Periods

This is what happens when you drop your guard!

There's been a bit of a kerflunkle on the Internet regarding superstar trainer Pat MacNamara's apparent support of a waiting period and universal background checks. So much so that MacNamara's video publisher, Panteao [with whom I have occasionally produced video, so be aware of that] felt obligated to answer the charges on AR15.com.

Frankly, we crucified Dick Metcalf and Jim Zumbo for a lot less.

Without going into MacNamara's sterling service to America as a legend in special forces, I want to, rather, specifically address what is wrong with "universal background checks" and "waiting periods." Let me sum it up very clearly — there is no such thing as "universal background checks" or "crimes of passion" prevented by a waiting period of any length. Both concepts are purely the creation of our blood enemies to incrementally rob us of our rights.

Regardless of who you are, if you accept the premise of either of those comments, you are playing into the hands of people who wish to destroy us. It is no different than saying, "You know, ISIS has a few good points if you look hard enough." Maybe they do, and there are indeed people who like cockroaches, too.

The concept of a "universal background check" has been thoroughly co-opted by what one might call the "Bloomberg Model" antigun legislation. We have extensive legal experience with the Bloomberg Model from our ultimately unsuccessful fight against it in Colorado. The Bloomberg Model, which is quite literally the only thing on the table, has nothing to do with "universal background checks." Instead, it seeks to criminalize numerous activities that gunowners have engaged in for decades, maybe centuries. The intent is to is a major attack on the gun culture itself. It does this by first off changing the definition of transfer.

Since its inception, ATF has defined a "transfer" as a "transfer of ownership," essentially the dictionary accepted definition of a transfer…I sell, trade, transfer ownership of a weapon to you. The Bloomberg Model replaces the common sense meaning of "transfer" with a completely different definition of of the word, "transfer of possession." Under the Bloomberg Model, if I hand you a gun, I have completed a "transfer;" to do so legally I need to have that simple action performed by an FFL. When you had the gun back to me, it needs to be done through an FFL. If we fail to include an FFL for both "transfers," we are guilty of Federal felonies.

This is a brilliant attack on the gun culture. Typically, we spread the culture by contact…I say this as the creator and manager of the NSSF Media Education Program, where I took antigun journalists to the range and taught them to shoot. It works, and it is how we spread our culture. By criminalizing that simple act, we find ourselves stymied, prevented from doing the very activities. we all took for granted the day before. "Universal background checks" are a weapon to destroy us!

To the best of my knowledge, every single "universal background check" initiative is based on the Bloomberg Model. Let me say that again — EVERY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK INITIATIVE IS BASED ON THE BLOOMBERG MODEL AND FUNDED BY BLOOMBERG SHELL ORGANIZATIONS. It clear enough for you? If you support such an initiative, you are siding with the Bloomberg machine against the NRA, against gun owners and ultimately against your own self-interest.

Ditto for the "crimes of passion" argument. The idea of a "crime of passion" is that a perfectly normal person is suddenly turned into a killer by the sudden rush of hormones, grabs (or races to the LGS, obtains a gun and shoots up, murders, whatever. In looking at the so-called "crimes of passions" over the years, especially examining them for THE BEST DEFENSE, instead of "perfectly normal people," what we repeatedly see is felons doing what felons do. In scratching the surface of crimes of passion we instead see long-term histories of petty crime, spousal abuse, escalating violence. "Crimes of passion" was originally a phrase applied to "hot-blooded peoples" like Hispanics and blacks, who allegedly were unable to control their passions. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.

Once again, to buy into the enemies' argument, to agree to the ememies' warping of language, is to play the enemies' game. If you play the enemies' game, you lose. We lose.

We have stopped losing in recent years because we have stopped playing the enemies' games. We choose the fight, we choose the battlefield, we reject the language of the enemy. That is how we win.

Because the pressure has been lifted with the election of Donald Trump and the seating of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, there's a tendency to drop our guard.

I would ask any one of my friends who served in special forces on any one of the far-flung hellholes we sent them to, what are the consequences of dropping your guard?






26 comments:

NJ Larry said...

I have a couple of advantages over most of your readers. I'm old. As I move into my late 60's I can reflect on what life was like half a century ago. Before 1968 and all the crap it ushered in. I also have lived my life behind the wire. I personally know the effect of the harshest of gun control. I have seen how handguns and black guns can effectively be denied to citizens.Finally I have sold to, and against Bloomberg from the first days he started his business. I have nothing good to say about him. I am glad I am retired.

From the begining of FFLs I pretty much have concluded that they were invented as part of confiscation. UBC and FFLs remove ownership of firearms from us. In essence guns start out life at the FFL and with UBC always return to the FFL at major and minor events in their life. Guns are treated as something quite different from any other privately owned property. In the slave state I live in, guns and magazines must be accounted for from birth thru death/disposal. The FFL is the designated agent of the all powerful STATE.

Just think of that. The STATE must be petitioned for "permission" to own say a handgun. They then tell you when you can obtain it. Sometimes a year and a half after you ask . Which ones you can obtain. Where it must be stored. Where you can shoot it. How it may be transported someplace to shoot it. Which facility is appropriate to shoot it. What ammo you can use to shoot in it. Which targets you can use. How many bullets you can load into it. And yes how FAST you may shoot it. What kind of device you can stick on the muzzle. And finally how and to whom you may sell or give it to. And the ever present FFL is part and parcel of the whole process.

We have a looong way back to sanity and Constitutional freedom. I fear that those younger than I know nothing different. Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. I feel obligated to remind others there was a time before.

Jerry The Geek said...

While I am offended by the "need" to ask permission to sell or buy a gun, I'm more concerned about the mechanism which has seemingly become accepted without comment.

It's not enough that we have to prove that we are neither madmen nor criminals, but we have to submit to ipso facto registration to do it.

Were it sufficient to meet governmental requirements to prove that we are legitimate purchasers of firearms, it is difficult to understand why the firearm itself need to be identified in detail.

When we submit to federal vetting, we must also ... by the mechanism long established, include the make, model, caliber and SERIAL NUMBER of the firearm being transferred.

Out Governmental agencies tasked with this vetting become the repository of a mechanism by which the transfer of an individual firearm becomes a matter of record.

Yes, they tell us that the details are deleted after x-number of days after the transaction.

I don't believe that, and neither should you.

If the sole purpose of a background check is to determine the bona fides of the purchaser, then the serial number of the firearm should not be a necessary data point in the transaction.

Instead, it is a requirement. Why?

It's not necessary to establish the identity of buyer or seller, nor the fitness of either to own a firearm.

This is Registration, which is the first step to confiscation, which in turn is a violation of the Second Amendment and our own personal right to privacy.

Many of us are loath to submit to such a "stealth registration" scheme; we may choose to bypass the laws which require it. This makes criminals of us, because we refuse to submit to an unjust regulation.

Most firearms owners (such as myself) decline to transfer firearms between people we do not personally know to be honest, law-abiding citizens. I own firearms which have not been subject to this "Stealth Registration"; my friends find themselves in this same uncomfortable position.

It comes down to "Will Not Comply" with onerous regulations which undermine our Constitutional Rights. We trust our own judgement more than we trust our Government.

It's a sad state of affairs; but necessary to a free people.

Anonymous said...

I was 14 in 1962 when my family moved to a farm in upstate New York. One of the first thunder did was order a rifle - a "sporterized" '91 Argentine Mauser and 100 rounds of 7.62 ammo - from the Montgomery Ward catalog, which was covered some few days later buy the mailman. Interestingly, I was not moved at all to bring that firearm to school and shoot up the place. All was calm. I miss those days.

clark myers said...

Mr. Bane you are of course and as usual precisely correct. I do mean precisely, neither understating nor going too far.

There's a cute cartoon floating the internet - professionally done but I have no idea who created it - showing two gunners in the field crossing a barbed wire fence one by one handing both long arms to a hunter who stays on one side of the fence while the other climbs over then the hunter who has climbed the fence with empty hands holds both long arms while his companion climbs the fence barehanded. The caption is in 49 states the way to cross a fence in Washington State a felony. UBCBadForME.com (Maine) has a wallet card with some of the ways Bloomberg checks criminalize normal behavior - leave your rifle at a deer camp with your fellow campers to make a quick run out - you will all be criminals. Leave your gun in the car with your hunting partner to watch the loaded car while you hit the head at a gas station? You are both criminals.

I have an acquaintance in California with a sword cane - as part of anti-gang legislation a sword cane is flat contraband with no legal way to possess in CA so he exposes house sitters and home health care providers all unknown to them to a mandatory one year in jail sentence when he leaves the house to others.

Background checks historically have been a different animal. Long long ago the gun lobby in Illinois more or less grudgingly accepted the Firearms Owners Id Card on the promise that this would satisfy the gun grabbers. What more could reasonably be asked than a once and for all universal background check? We now know that nothing satisfies the gun grabbers and the FOID is another tax with no benefits that confers no rights.

I might well be trapped myself in an edited interview with clever questions about say the Idaho Enhanced Carry License functioning as a Universal Background Check and expediting 4473 checks.

I think Haynie Joaquin Jackson got a raw deal and continues to get a raw deal on Wikipedia say where I just checked his name.

I don't think Jim Zumbo got a raw deal but he seems to have been more or less forgiven. I can definitely imagine a smart interviewer asking about say using a modern sporting rifle for a 77 year old this year traditional One Shot Antelope Hunt, Lander Wyoming, and getting answers that can be edited to condemn the MSR for sporting purposes.

Myself I am reserving judgment, while prepared either to condemn or forgive, on the simple statement supporting universal background checks without further qualification. A reminder to always have a copy of the full unedited interview tape just in case.

It might mean no more than a willingness to live with the 4473 process. The very much dishonest governor of Colorado has repeatedly spoken limiting the universal background check to meaning only the current 4473 process when he says folks have every right to be annoyed at a 15 minute delay but it's a small price and so he and his party are being reasonable in asking for universal background checks on the Bloomberg model.

There is an obligation to never give aid and comfort to the enemies, here I include the gun grabbers in the enemies of mankind. There is a "not what I meant, consider the source" tape floating around as well. I might limit my first reaction to don't give aid and comfort before I sent somebody to Coventry. But I do agree that sending somebody to Coventry is mild considered the importance of the issue.

Publicola said...

I'll point out that any attempt to fight against Universal Background Checks alone are unlikely to be successful. People generally don't approve of hypocrisy, & it looks hypocritical as hell to say that UBC's are bad, but somehow a background check at a gun store (or gun show) is hunky dory. Any strategy to fight against UBC's must not be limited to UBC's; one has to argue against backgrounds checks across the board, and oppose the prohibited persons list itself.

I & many others have written about the pragmatic and principled reasons to do away with the prohibited persons list entirely but I'll admit that it'll take some work to overcome decades of folks acquiescing or even condoning over-the-counter background checks. "You don't want felons/wifebeaters/crazy people to have guns do ya?" Of course the prohibited persons list doesn't keep any types of people from being dangerous or even possessing firearms, but generations of propaganda & pop logic isn't easy to counter no matter how logical the arguments are.

Still, this is a fight we must engage, or else chug the kool-aid this idiot Macnamara seems to be guzzling & hope the chains don't chafe too much. It'd be real damn nice if the NRA, SAF, & NSSF would stop helping the enemy - they all support or encourage background checks at the retail level with nary a word of caution agin the practice. In short, folks that support any form of gunowner control laws - the prohibited persons list, permit or licensing for owning or carrying, restrictions on items or ammunition, etc - are not pro-gunowner. They may not be frothing-at-the-mouth DiFi adherents, but they're not pro-gunowner if they support any intrusion upon a person's Rights.

This is about the Right to weapons after all, not a mere privilege or other form of grant by the state. Confusing how a Right should be treated with how a privilege can be treated is one of the biggest dangers we face. Asking or waiting on permission is not how a right is supposed to be handled - that's the way a privilege is doled out. We get those two things crossed up at our own peril.

If Macnamara can realize the error of his ways (quickly) then cool. If not, then I know I won't offer him any support in anything he tries to do commercially, and I'd hope other gunowners respond similarly.

clark myers said...

Let me say that while I do post my own comments on this board under my own name I disagree with language such as "chug the Kool-Aid this idiot Macnamara seems to guzzling." PatMac is not an idiot nor are his beliefs mistaken by my own lights.

In fact PatMac frex on P&S ModCast 102 - PatMac, Gun Rights, NFA publicly accepts the blame for allowing a cut and pasted interview that totally reverses his intended meaning by omitting part of his words. He acknowledges letting his guard down over the course of a full day on camera. Omitting part of PatMac's words a la Katie Couric misrepresents his beliefs. The key question as shown was associated with the answer to a different question. PatMac reasserts that his statement in full is in line with and would be politically correct by the most extreme gun rights support notions. I agree that I could only go right on to the full position as expressed.

I do find more fault in Zumbo and in Metcalf both for statements I disagree with and for washing family dirty laundry in public. Citing Mr. Heinlein from Expanded Universe and such circulating criticism that belongs inside the family is a bad thing to be avoided.

For the reasons implicit in my own comments and my own understanding of PatMac's beliefs and competence I do support him in this and I would support him commercially myself and encourage others to do likewise.

There is no win but I can't really hold it against someone that they chose to fight a losing battle.

Kansas Scout said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremiah Weed said...

I'm not sure how Metcalf's actions were "less" egregious. IIRC, he is a firearms trainer from IL, and would have stood to benefit financially from the proposed
16 hrs of training. On top of that, when the firearms community questioned him on his stance, he got rather nasty and condescending, as I recall. Has he ever, to this day, admitted the error of his ways?

There's a huge difference, to me, between Zumbo (ignorant but came around), MacNamara (who seems to have gotten played by the other side), and Dick (who actively tried to sell out gunowners for fame and profit). Dick chose his side.

Louis said...

A whole other thread to this is agreeing to do interviews with anyone you don't trust 100%. The only ones worse than the news media are cable entertainment networks. You can guarantee that they will interview you for long enough and then cut it so it comes out exactly as they want. In this case he claims it was edited, but there was also an exchange with him on facebook that indicates otherwise.

clark myers said...

Louis would you please expand on the exchange with PatMac himself on Facebook to which you refer? Whose page? Who is speaking? In what manner does it contradict the notion that the Comedy Central interview was cut to give a false impression?

You say indicates otherwise? What does indicates and otherwise mean in your post? That is what is actually indicated in the Facebook post that is otherwise? And again who posted, who all spoke, where on Facebook and what was said by each speaker?

Are you writing that PatMac says someplace on Facebook that the Comedy Central post was NOT edited but is complete and accurate?

All I can find searching Facebook under Pat and Patrick MacNamara are repetitions of the Comedy Central Material, repetitions of the P&S Modcast and of the Instagram contradiction. Guns America, Student of the Gun and many other people and organizations have references including links but I have not found anything with more information than the same Comedy Central video - and the same P&S Modcast.

I have seen a short video of PatMac with a much less than full explanation in which PatMac says consider the source before jumping to conclusions and stops there. Perhaps that video exists in greater length someplace.

Anybody else? Again I would dearly love a pointer to anything that indicates otherwise for whatever that means.

clark myers said...

Might add that there is a screen shot - I have no idea where the original screen is and the screen shot is truncated without a visible source in the postings I have seen, might be somebody's Facebook page but I don't know who the Facebook page might belong to, might have been from some other source and repeated on Facebook, from the commentators seems to be fitness types, so there is a screenshot floating around on gun social media frex on ENDO Gun Blog, where PatMac assuming it's really him does have a yup in connection with a 3 day wait

tmacsinc@damage_photo yup, Deters crimes of passion or acts of spontaneity

- I take it but do not know that this is the social media discussion PatMac refers to on the P&S ModCast.... mentioned above.

Nothing to change the Comedy Central narrative but may imply that PatMac is or has been less than totally outraged by the 3 day waiting period. Might or might not be. There are better things to get upset about. I believe PatMac's story of the Comedy Central editing. I believe PatMac has been casual about the 3 day waiting period and says so. For what PatMac has more recently said, and presumably believes I have no better source than the P&S Modcast.

Strikes me PatMac is not the type to back down from a confrontation with Comedy Central even when discretion is the better part of valor. Just as well to have folks like that around. When you really have to charge uphill at machine guns it pays to have somebody who thinks it might be a good idea.

David aka Drifting Fate said...

I really like what PatMac brings to the training community and respect his extreme service to this country. But, we cannot compromise on gun rights - "...shall not be infringed." is supposed to mean something. It must mean something, or we will hang separately.

I've read all the hoop-la about editing, Panteo's excuses, but, that Twitter clip remains of him agreeing with restrictions on our rights. That is NOT acceptable, no matter who you are or what you have done.

The man is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I don't have train with him or buy his books. And, the both of us are the poorer for it, but we have to stand on principle. Hopefully he retracts and means it, but there will always be doubt...

Anonymous said...

Figuratively "Hang 'em!!"

No Compromises! Remember, when you compromise your values (We are right! They are WRONG!), you meet somewhere between "right" and "wrong", but you still end up wrong. You are either completely right, or you are ALL wrong.

No COMPROMISES! We need to gain back the ground that we have already lost, not give more.

Hang 'em!

Life Member

NJ Larry said...

Oh boy. Spent the last 2 hours this morning watching news coverage of the shooting of House Whip Rep Scalise and others. Gird your lions folks. I suspect we may be seeing a very sad turn by the left. Shooter is being reported as Bernie supporter. You can kiss goodbye the HPA. Plus look for a push again on black guns. What we really dont need is a freaking CW2.

Anonymous said...

Yeah nj, the "Left" uses guns to try to assassinate Republicans and they'll be the ones to cry for gun control. In their warped reasoning, they see a "win-win" there. What a warped and twisted strategy they seem to have.

We of course do not have all of the facts yet and should not jump to conclusions in this case, but as of this minute,enough has come out from credible witnesses without the Leftist Main-Stream media's white-washing, to see not only where it came from, but where it's all going.

Renew with great energy, the fight to restore our rights and keep those that want to take them from us from doing just that.


Life Member

NJ Larry said...

Wow...would like to hear MB comment on the following. Today everyone has a cell phone. Some guy video'd the gunfight today. This was NOT your avg shootout. Video runs a little less than 2 minutes but constant gunfire. Certainly makes ya ponder carrying more than one or two mags....scroll down for video...

https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-gop-baseball-shooting/

NJ Larry said...

Update: Full unedited version of cell video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHM73eJCa7k

Anonymous said...

nj,

You "hit it right on the head" (Disclaimer/Trigger-Warning; this is another figurative saying!). The left has not only perpetrated this assassination attempt of our Republican statesmen, but they are using that act to call for more gun-control as the "cure". And they have wasted no time in fast-forwarding to that.

Now, they are quick to "share" the blame for this outrage with Conservatives as if we somehow are also complicit. We NEVER hear people from our side threatening anyone's life. We don't even offer satire to that effect. Oh yeah, you will here us call for "corporate capital punishment" (that's 'firing', for the uninformed), as the core subject of this thread has done, but never on this site, nor on any of our other enthusiast sites do you hear or see what the leftists call for, the killing of individuals because they are disagreed with. What irony for them to grasp at the very notion that Trump caused the Scalise shooting, or even Sara Palin. Sarah Palin? Still?

Nj, you were right, "gird your loins".

Life Member

Anonymous said...

And in other news:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/this-is-the-best-indicator-yet-that-analysts-were-wrong-about-the-gun-industry/ar-BBCDWrR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


We knew that!

Life Member

Anonymous said...

But then, there is this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-introduces-illegal-gun-amnesty-after-islamist-inspired-attacks/ar-BBCKkJV?ocid=spartandhp

The comments are 100% in objection. The Liberals are all silent in their support. They are just laying-in-wait; silently waiting for their chance.

If we don't watch out, this will be our future.

Life Member

Anonymous said...

Just to keep something going here:

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/we-need-guns-before-the-cops-arrive-1497821819-lMyQjAxMTE3NDExOTExNDk3Wj/

Worth reading....
Life Member

Anonymous said...

Out in the "sticks"; way-outside of Flint, Michigan, this is just unfolding:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/21/flint-bishop-airport-police-officer-stabbed-airport-evacuated-and-suspect-in-custody.html

This is right in my back yard. For all of the gun-grabbers out there who say "that's life in a big city", it just shows how ignorant they actually are. They say "just call the police" if you're confronted by evil. The guy attacked IS a cop! This ain't the big city either, believe it or not. And this perp' used a knife, AGAIN.

Life Member

NJ Larry said...

@Life....best advice ever from classic Hill Street Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pIkkzDagsY

Anonymous said...

nj, Yep!

People will finally come-around, but it will be AFTER much is lost.

And look at what's happening in gun-banned Mexico, as if we all here couldn't see this happening:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/murders-hit-record-high-mexico-013144847.html

Life Member

Anonymous said...

And so much for the "gun show loop-hole" myth that the gun-grabbers continually opine:

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/263163945-story

http://www.wxyz.com/news/flint-stabbing-suspect-reportedly-tried-to-buy-gun-days-before-attack

The Flint Bishop Airport terrorist, before his attack, tried to buy a gun at the Gibraltar Trade Center in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, BUT WAS DENIED THE PURCHASE for all of the correct LEGAL reasons! For those not familiar with the Gibraltar Trade Center, it has had over the years, regularly held gun shows and swap meets. These are very large gun shows. The popularity of them has lead to a type of on-going sale activity at the site, with dealers of all types taking up residency and conducting LEGAL business full-time. Kind of like an on-going gun show held by LICENSED DEALERS.

The Perp' was denied! So, the laws worked again! WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE NEW LAWS.

Life Member

Fred Mertz said...

Going through a background check for a security clearance even one with a lifestyle ploy and having all kinds of letters after your TS doesn't mean that you can be trusted with classified info or with a firearm. Its the folks with the really clean background checks that scare me the most. Universal Background Checks are a joke. The nut job who shot up the Hill's baseball practice in VA obvious passed his. Also remember the president, vp and all members of Congress have access to classified info but none of them ever underwent a background check for it.

I have a few friends who routinely beat polygraphs and some are administered by current or former alphabet soup agency polygraphers for money or drinks.

The current system of background checks for firearms will never be perfect and has to balanced so that it doesn't infringe on our Constitutional rights.