Bouncing Background Checks

If you've read anything I've written in the past week (or ever) you've probably realized that I'm opposed to background checks under any pretext whatsoever. I think supporting any sort of expansion of background checks is an unwise move and definitely not the best option we have as gunowners. So, what should we do instead of appeasement?

The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.

So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Let us take a look into a fairly reliable crystal ball I like to call history and see what will happen if we choose appeasement by supporting "universal" background checks in exchange for other concessions...

Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA,  It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.

So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?

From The Billing Department

I wasn't sure if anything would be filed yet, it being only the first day of the session, but I did find some firearms related bills in the Colorado legislature.

State of the State

 That'd of course be My, the State. So how are things in The Centennial State you ask? In the words of Hoyt from John Boy and Billy's The Big Show, not too good.

If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:

The Colorado Legislature is back in session.

From My Cold Sled Hands

Dubuque, Iowa is the latest in a number of towns and cities that have banned sledding. Yep. Sledding. The bans appear to be limited to city owned property.

"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."

The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:

"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."

I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.

Back to the original article:

"Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever possible.

'It's a great idea on the frontier, but we don't live on the frontier anymore,' Bond said."

At the part where they mentioned "New York lawyer" I  somehow just felt like I was being lied to, and instinctively put one hand on my wallet and the other on my Garand.

That is part of the problem though; progressives from more densely populated states try to use the "old west" rationalization to justify any encroachments on not only individual freedom, but individual responsibility as well. A question though - if it's not a frontier then what are all these carpetbaggers doin' 'round here? Come to edjumacate us hicks on our earth killing sled-risk-takin' ways? To enlighten us about how the collective matters more than the individual? That government is responsible for us in every way imaginable and must protect us from ourselves?

"...[Assistant city attorney Tom] Mumgaard said courts in Nebraska have decided cities must protect people, even if they make poor choices."

Ayup. That's exactly what they came out here to tell us about.

The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:

"In Omaha, the city banned sledding at a popular hill as a test one winter after losing a lawsuit, but decided to allow it again after most people ignored the restriction.

'It wasn't practical,' assistant city attorney Tom Mumgaard said. 'People wouldn't abide by the ban."

 Gee, imagine that - people ignoring a law. I wonder if this could have any implications for gun owners...?

The Wrong People

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.”

That was from a speech President Obama gave on January 16^th of 2013 as he unveiled his plan for new gunowner laws. It is true that an estimated 1.5 million people were denied permission to exercise the Right of owning a firearm during that time frame. But pay attention to what he called them – “the wrong people”. 

Agin Background Check Appeasement

It has come to my attention that there are certain segments of the gun owning community that feel conceding on the issue of background checks is a politically and pragmatically wise course of action. The idea is that since gunowners were outspent in Washington state in the fight over passage of I-594 that such losses are inevitable in other states, therefore if we support some form of universal background check we can reduce the damage done by an I-594-like law. The most prominent proponent of such an idea is Alan Gottlieb of SAF and CCRKBA fame, but he is not alone.

To this notion I must not only say “No”, but “Go to hell no”. Allow me to break it down:

If You Don't Know Me By Now

I seem to have found myself back on blogger, and having been away for so long I'm not quite certain what all these buttons do. So don't pay too much attention to this post as I'm just experimenting to see what all I can or can't manage. I may or may not try to spruce the place up a bit, but my time is limited and there were a few topics I wanted to touch on so it's possible I'll just try to crank out those and leave the page as it looks now. Or close to it. So, do pardon the mess.

Oh, if you're wondering, I picked the title of this post because the template I went with is a simple red. ;) In case you didn't catch that, I'll post a vid in the extended entry: