| MYTH | REALITY | Real Reality |
| Background checks are ineffective and restrictive. Checks “would significantly restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans while doing little or nothing to protect against further gun violence.” [Sen. Mike Lee, 4/9/2013] | Ninety percent of background checks can be completed in less than two minutes and the Manchin-Toomey proposal would expedite the process. Under the amendment, if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, the background check would be required to be conducted in 24 hours. Background checks have already contributed to violence reduction. In the 14 states and Washington D.C. that require background checks for private handgun sales (including Toomey’s home state of Pennsylvania): 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners, 17 percent fewer firearms are involved in aggravated assaults, and 48 percent less gun trafficking. | |
| Criminals will avoid background checks. “My problem with background checks is, you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks.” [Wayne LaPierre, 1/30/2013] | From 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness. In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracks of the existing background check system. The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply. | |
| Background checks will lead to a gun registry. “The Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry. ” [Sen. Ted Cruz, 4/9/2013] | Federally licensed gun dealers have conducted background checks for more than 40 years without ever creating a national gun registry, which federal law specifically prohibits. Under this agreement, federal dealers would conduct screenings for private sellers and keep the record; the federal government would not. When a gun is recovered at a violent crime, law enforcement can use the records to track down the perpetrator. All information identifying the buyer generated by the background check would be destroyed by law enforcement within 24 hours. The Manchin-Toomey amendment explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry in three different places and treats the misuse of records for the pursue of creating a registry as a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.From the legislative language: And:
 |
|
| Background checks wouldn’t have prevented Newtown. “The reality is, when you look at the tragedy of Newtown, nothing that’s been proposed would have any effect on that at all.” [Sen. John Boozman, 4/10/2013] | As Toomey admitted during a press conference announcing the measure, background checks will not prevent every gun crime, but they can keep hundreds of thousands of people who shouldn’t have weapons from obtaining them. For instance, it’s estimated that 62 percent of private gun sellers on the Internet and 63 percent of private sellers at gun shows have agreed to sell a firearm to buyers who said they probably couldn’t pass a background check. More than 6.6 million gun sales were transferred in 2012 without a criminal background check and a survey of prisoners who committed crimes with handguns found nearly 80 percent of them acquired their firearm from a person who was not a licensed dealer. | |
| Obama isn’t prosecuting people who fail background checks. “[T]he Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority — in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44.” [Sen. Ted Cruz, 3/28/2013] | Federal firearm prosecutions has remained steady, varying by no more than 5 percent each year, data from the Department of Justice reveals. Republicans and the NRA specifically cherry pick prosecutions for background checks to imply that the Obama administration has stopped enforcing existing law, though it has gone after gun-related crimes at the same rate as its predecessors. Law enforcement officials often see these cases as a poor use of resources because prosecutors must prove that “the person knew they were lying when they tried to purchase the firearm” in order to secure a conviction which “usually carries a maximum sentence of just six months.” | |
| Obama isn’t enforcing the laws on the books. “It’s not about new gun laws; it’s about enforcing the ones we have.” [Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), 4/4/2013] | The laws on the books are inadequate. Criminals and mentally ill individuals can buy guns at gun shows or online and many who go through a federally licensed dealer often slip through the cracks because states are not putting records into the NICS system. In fact, following the Newtown tragedy, the NRA successfully attached riders to the resolution funding the government through September that limited enforcement tools against crooked dealers and interfered with ATF gun trace reports. That’s why the Manchin-Toomey bill expands checks and improves the existing system. | |
| Background checks are an invasion of privacy. “You just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” [ACLU, 4/4/2013] | Federally licensed gun dealers have successfully performed millions of background checks without violating personal privacy and Americans disclose personal information to the DMV or the IRS and their data is successfully walled off from nefarious uses. |
Inside the UN Treaty
What the UN Treaty Means to You
By Jeff Knox
(April 4, 2013) On Tuesday, April 2, the United Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions, voted in favor of adopting a sweeping Arms Trade Treaty that has been the source of much speculation, derision, and concern within the rights community in the US. While the language adopted by the UN is more in line with the demands of groups representing US gun owners and representatives of our firearms industry, there are still aspects of the treaty that are of concern. The UN’s long-standing antipathy toward private firearms ownership demands that the language of the treaty must be viewed through the prism of that hostility.
The treaty began life in 2001 as the “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.” That mouthful of a title formed the framework for meetings that eventually became the basis of the treaty. During the Bush administration, Ambassador John Bolton almost completely shut down the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty with his dogged objections to any provision that encroached on private firearms ownership or that encompassed any firearms, parts, or ammunition popular with US consumers. During Obama’s first term, the treaty was revived, though his administration moved cautiously and worked to mitigate Senate concerns about provisions that would overtly impact US citizens’ Second Amendment rights. During that first term, the one reassuring promise from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was that the final treaty draft had to achieve the full consensus of the drafting committee in order to gain US support. It was this demand for full consensus – a unanimous vote – that effectively tabled the troublesome treaty during Obama’s reelection campaign.
Senate Action
Stop Obama’s Gun Plans – Demand a Filibuster
By Jeff Knox
(April 8, 2013) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared that he will bring the Democrat gun control package to the floor of the Senate for a vote this week, though there is talk that he might delay until next week. We have already detailed Reid’s intention to allow Dianne Feinstein to offer her “assault weapons” ban and to have Frank Lautenberg’s magazine ban offered as amendments to a less aggressive package, thereby giving Senators plenty of really bad stuff to vote against as proof that they’re not “anti-gun” before they turn around and vote for a package of less onerous-sounding anti-gun infringements. The idea is to complicate, confuse, and obfuscate in hopes of squeaking out a win for “universal background checks” and expanded “anti-trafficking” provisions – or at the very least, painting the evil Republicans as supporters of rapists, murderers, terrorists, and wife-beaters if they can effectively stop the bill.
As he has in the past, Reid will give Democrats from more conservative states a pass to vote No on the more aggressive provisions, but he will do everything in his power to force all members of his party to vote in favor of the final package. Reid is likely to vote against the Feinstein and Lautenberg amendments himself, but he will pull out all the stops if he sees any way of handing President Obama a Senate victory on guns – including bribes and blackmail as we saw during the votes on Obama-Care.
Alert 4-2-2013
* UN Gun Control Treaty Passed by General Assembly
* Vote on Gun Control Package Imminent – Senators are “Home” this week. Tell them how to vote!
On Friday, the Knox Gun Rights Report on World Net Daily (WND.com) alerted activists that the US Senate is scheduled to vote on the Democrat gun control package as soon as they return from their Easter Break. Right now Senators are supposed to be in their home states meeting with constituents during this “State Work Period,” and some of them might actually be doing that. If yours are among them, you could have the opportunity to tell them directly how you feel about their efforts to further infringe on your rights.
Read all about it by following this link:
And then take action by telling your senators that none of the proposals are acceptable, that none of them would have prevented or mitigated the tragedies in Connecticut and Colorado, that none of them would reduce crime. Tell them that a vote for any of them will be recognized as a betrayal of the Constitution and their oath of office.
Don’t delay! Call, write, and call again!
Some senators are under the mistaken notion that if they vote against gun and magazine bans they can freely vote in favor of expanded background checks (criminalizing private transfers) and “anti trafficking” proposals that would put gun owners and dealers at increased risk of federal prosecution. You can correct these misperceptions.
The votes should take place early next week. Now is the time to push the message home: No New Gun Laws! No Bans. No “Universal Background Checks.” No Dangerous New “Anti-Trafficking” laws. No Compromise!
The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
Over the weekend we alerted readers of the potential for the UN to move forward with a final vote adopting the sweeping Arms Trade Treaty that US negotiators have been blocking for years.
On Tuesday morning our fears were realized as the treaty was adopted in the UN General Assembly – with strong US support. While the current language is much better than past versions, there are aspects of this treaty that have direct impact on US consumers and gun owners.
Our original story, and the follow-up report can be found on our web site at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. Please read it and share it with your friends.
Please forward this Alert to every freedom-loving American you know.
For a better understanding of just what’s wrong with “universal background checks” and the current “anti-trafficking” proposals, see these columns from The Firearms Coalition’s director, Jeff Knox:
Both of these columns are also available atwww.FirearmsCoalition.org.
If you’re not a Supporting Member of The Firearms Coalition, we invite you to step up now to help us fight this unprecedented fight. Formed by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition has been fighting for your rights for almost 30 years, but we can only be effective if we have your help. Please visit our web site at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org and make whatever contribution you can afford. Visit us on Facebook, and share our columns and information with your friends and family. Together we can protect our rights and save our republic.
Yours for the Second Amendment,
The Firearms Coalition
This Action Alert was sent from The Firearms Coalition to our friends and supporters. If it was forwarded to you, you can register for Alerts and Updates at www.FirearmsCoaliton.org. We never share your information.
If you do not wish to receive Alerts, Updates, and Reports from The Firearms Coalition, just let us know.
You can reply to this email with the word Remove in the subject and we will take care of it.
NSSF Fumbles
NSSF President Sanetti Shoots Foot in Mouth
What is Steve Sanetti Thinking?
“controlling access to firearms should be at the heart of efforts to prevent violence and make American society safer”…?
The President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Steve Sanetti, appeared on CBS News last week declaring that “Access is the key” to preventing crime and tragedies like what happened in Newtown, CT last December, and went so far as to claim that had the mother of the murdering little deviant who committed that atrocity had her guns more securely stored, the tragedy would not have happened.
Come on Steve! You cannot keep guns away from “the wrong people” in a free society. The only “access control” that has proven to work is not locking up guns, but locking up those who cannot be trusted with guns. Continue reading NSSF Fumbles
Catch Senators Now!
Catch Your Senators While You Can
Easter Break gives you an opportunity
By Jeff Knox
(March 27, 2013) Your two US Senators are supposed to be at home working in their local offices this week and next before returning to Washington where one of their first agenda items will be a vote on S.649, the Democrat gun control package. As previously reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has decided not to include Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) ban on semi-auto firearms and standard magazines in the base package, but instead will allow Feinstein to offer her gun and magazine bans as separate amendments. Reid says Feinstein will get two votes, one on adding her full bill, and one on just including the magazine ban. What is already included in the official bill is Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) language criminalizing private firearm transfers that haven’t gone through a government permission process, and a proposal from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that piles penalties on already-illegal straw sales and firearm transfers to prohibited persons, thus raising the stakes for dealers who fail to psychically detect lies on paperwork.
Reid’s objective in his management of the legislation is to get the most restrictive gun control bill politically possible, while at the same time providing political cover to himself and colleagues from gun-friendly states who might face repercussions for casting anti-gun votes. He is hoping that senators can play both sides of the fence by voting down the Feinstein ban and voting for the other legislation. Reid hopes that anti-gun forces will reward senators who vote for the package and that GunVoters will forgive a vote in favor of the more “moderate” infringements on their rights, especially by those who voted against the more draconian proposals.
UN-Scrambling a Mess
Update: UN Passes Arms Trade Treaty
As we warned in the column below, the Arms Trade Treaty was moving, but even we weren’t expecting it to move this fast.
This morning in New York, the UN General Assembly passed the long-debated Arms Control Treaty placing tight restrictions on import and export of not just military armament, but civilian small arms and ammunition as well.
While it is highly unlikely that this treaty will ever be ratified by the US, it will still have serious impact on US consumers and foreign manufacturers who depend on the US market – even without US ratification. In abandoning their pledge to veto any agreement that did not have full consensus of the drafting committee, the Obama administration not only dealt a blow to US consumers, they also abandoned the US role as defender of human rights for millions of people around the world. The only good that might come from the passage of this treaty is that it could help to steel the resolve of US gun owners to redouble their efforts to fight domestic gun control efforts.
Stay informed on the latest rights news by subscribing to our Facebook feed and signing up for email Updates and Alerts atwww.FirearmsCoalition.org
Here is a link to the story in the Washington Times:
Anti-Gun Treaty Blocked, but Threatening in UN
US reversal invites simple majority vote for adoption
By Jeff Knox
(March 30, 2013) After decades of bickering over an international Arms Trade Treaty in the UN, negotiations hit another snag right at what was supposed to be the conclusion of the drafting process. Nonetheless, the treaty is far from dead. Actually, it is a greater threat right now than it has ever been. While three countries, Iran, Syria, and North Korea rejected the final language, which should mean another return to the negotiation table under the committee’s rules of full consensus, several highly placed UN sources have suggested that the ATT might be pushed on to a vote of the full General Assembly even without achieving consensus in the committee.
That could spell serious trouble for opponents of the treaty, both here in the US and abroad. The US representative on the committee and the office of UN Secretary General, have both indicated a desire to see the current treaty language moved to the General Assembly for a vote. In the General Assembly, the treaty would only need a plurality to be adopted by the UN, and without a veto from one of the “big five”, China, Russia, France, the UK, or the US, should easily sail through to adoption. The big change in the equation is the US position which has consistently been that they would not support any treaty that did not achieve full consensus from all of the committee members. Now the US representative, Thomas Countryman, has casually dismissed full consensus as being unrealistic, and says the US would vote in favor of the treaty in the General assembly. That sentiment was echoed by the office of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Dangerous Duty
Dangerous Duty: “Duty to Inform” in Illinois CCW Bill
By Chris Knox
A debate over a “Duty to Inform” (DTI) clause in a proposed concealed carry law is currently raging in Illinois, pitting Chicago gun owners against “downstate” (i.e. not Cook County) folks. It’s a family fight, and outsiders are rarely welcome in such squabbles. Outsiders in the present case would include this Arizona-based columnist. Some key sources in both Illinois and within the NRA either flatly refused to speak to me or just went silent when I started asking questions. Opponents of the DTI language, mostly based in Chicago, are furious, fearing that the bad provisions of the law will expose them to cops who will automatically swing into tactical mode at the sight of a civilian gun. Proponents of the language – those who would speak with me – acknowledge the issues, but feel that getting the bill through is worth the problematic language.
As most readers know, Illinois was the last state to recognize some semblance of the right to carry a defensive weapon. In December of 2012 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the concealed carry ban violated the Second Amendment. The court gave Illinois 180 days to implement a concealed carry system. Not surprisingly, opponents of the Second Amendment hope to minimally comply with the order, and will throw obstacles in front of anyone daring to exercise the right to bear arms. By making it dangerous to carry in certain districts, Duty to Inform is one such obstacle.
The bill most likely to pass is HB 997, introduced by Rep. Brandon Phelps whose district lies in the southern tip if Illinois. The actual source of the DTI language in the bill is murky. Rep. Phelps has stated that the language came from the NRA. Calls to the NRA were not returned, but at least one trusted source tells me that the NRA denied drafting the language. It seems to have appeared at least two years ago when the Illinois legislature last flirted with a concealed-carry law. At that time NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde had offered the language to neutralize the then-vociferous opposition by the Illinois Association of Police Chiefs to any sort of concealed-carry bill.
As the main strategist for the legislation, Mr. Vandermyde apparently feels that the chiefs’ support, or at least lack of opposition, still hinges on DTI and that neutralizing them is key to passing the bill. I say “apparently” because Mr. Vandermyde refused to speak with me saying I was not being helpful, and hung up. A video shows him before a committee hearing saying that the language was included after “four years of negotiations with the police chiefs and the sheriffs.”
The DTI language was a tactic to dilute opposition from law enforcement. In reality, DTI will not contribute anything to officer safety. Cops know that every traffic stop must be treated as a potentially lethal situation. Likewise, a responsible citizen knows that it’s not a good idea to surprise a cop. The risk of DTI is that it creates an excuse, or can be misused if an encounter with police turns bad, as was a case in Canton, Ohio that turned into a minor YouTube sensation. Making a traffic stop, the Ohio officer was so aggressively “in charge” as he conducted a (probably illegal) search of a vehicle, that the driver could not get out that he had a CCW permit and that he was carrying.
The experience of other states with DTI, particularly Ohio, shows that DTI with criminal penalties creates dangers for anyone who carries. Other states have DTI, but most do not have onerous penalties attached. Under the proposed Illinois language, failure to inform would be a serious misdemeanor, as in Ohio, with penalties that could include loss of gun rights.
Whether the DTI language – and the support of the police chiefs – is still needed for the bill to pass is a judgment call. Mr. Vandermyde and others outside Chicago feel that the legislation needs to pass as it is and that problems with the bill can be addressed once it has passed. Chicago and Cook County residents fear that DTI will put them at the mercy of swaggering cops who go into felony stop mode if they see a gun. Chicago Police Chief Gary McCarthy went right up to the line of saying that anyone with a gun would be assumed to be a bad guy. The implications are chilling.
I claim no expertise in the ways of the Illinois legislature, and certainly can’t count the votes. Nonetheless, it is a new day in Illinois. In addition to the court order, attitudes are changing, particularly among African-Americans in Chicago. Can the bill pass without the dangerous language? I don’t know. Should the DTI language be a poison pill? Probably not. But if the DTI language can’t come out before the bill goes to the floor, it needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Hopefully the proof of the need for fixing the law won’t be a concealed carry permit holder in jail, or worse, dead.
Trafficking Bill Out of Committee
Trafficking Bill Passes Out of Judiciary Committee
Vote is 11 – 7 with Grassley Sole Republican Supporter
The Firearms Coalition’s Chris Knox and Jeff Knox have been busy exposing problems with the legislation.
The brothers penned a short op-ed piece for USA Today newspaper pointing out the fact that gun law enforcement inevitably migrates toward prosecution of innocent mistakes while ignoring active criminals.
That piece can be read here:
Jeff has a more comprehensive column on the subject published on World Net Daily which can be accessed here:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/
Bloomberg-Democrat, Republican, Sugerdaddy?
Bloomberg Buys Illinois Congressional Seat
The South Side of Chicago has long been a hotbed of political intrigue and corruption, but soon overwhelmingly Democrat residents of the South Side and the southern suburbs will be able to bask in the warm, fuzzy glow of knowing that their Representative to Congress was purchased by a New York, former Republican, Independent. Earlier this week, Robin Kelly, a former treasurer and state legislator, won the Democrat Primary for the seat vacated by Jesse Jackson Jr. (who resigned in disgrace after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar). Kelly won the right to represent her party in the March Special election by a substantial margin over the various other contenders, most notably former Representative Debbie Halverson, her closest competitor. Halverson pulled down only 25% of the votes to Kelly’s 52%. Kelly and Halverson both gave credit for Kelly’s overwhelming victory to New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg whose Super PAC spent some $2.2 million promoting Kelly and bashing Halverson.
While $2.2 million spent in a campaign doesn’t seem like a lot these days, it must be considered that this is a primary race where candidates typically don’t even break the $100,000 mark. As a matter of fact, it is unusual for a candidate to spend $2 million in the General Election for an Illinois congressional race, much less over $2 million in the Primary. But Kelly, like Bloomberg, is a virulent opponent to gun rights, while Halverson received an A rating from the National Rifle Association, and Bloomberg is trying to prove that being anti-rights is an advantage in elections.
Continue reading Bloomberg-Democrat, Republican, Sugerdaddy?