Posts Tagged ‘Brady Campaign’
Gun Owners of America Offering Real Solutions to Last Night’s Shootings
— As another Gun Free Kill Zone claims lives
Last night’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado was extremely tragic, as more than a dozen people were killed in another Gun Free Kill Zone.
At the opening showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” James Holmes dressed up in costume and murdered several people while the movie was barely thirty minutes into the story. The gunman used a movie gunfight to cover his actions and further surprise the innocent patrons. Worse, the theater in Aurora reportedly has a “no guns” policy.
Despite gun control’s obvious failure, the calls for more restrictions have already begun:
* Piers Morgan of CNN came out of the box, calling for more gun control in the wake of the shooting.
* New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the strategy of people arming themselves for self-defense just “doesn’t work.”
* And the Brady Campaign took the opportunity to tell the nation that, “This is yet another horrific reminder that guns enable mass killings.”
Tragically, many were killed last night. But it is also tragic that there was not another gun-toting Samuel Williams at the theater — the senior who rescued several Floridians against two armed thugs at an Internet cafe last week. (You can read the story and watch the exciting video here.)
And of course, while the national media is sure to focus on this Aurora, Colorado shooting for days to come, there is another shooting in that same city that you probably heard nothing about — when a worshipper at an Aurora church stopped a shooting this past April.
In that shooting, the bad guy was only able to kill one person in the parking lot, as the armed hero took him out before any other damage could be done.
Funny how the national media tends NOT to pick up stories where the good guy stops the perp!
To keep this in perspective, whenever we hear about horrid shootings like the one last night in Aurora, Colorado, we should remember that guns save as many as 80 lives for every one that is tragically taken. See the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet here.
Gun Owners of America is appearing on several media outlets today to answer questions about our gun rights and to offer concealed carry solutions as the cure to future acts of terrorism like this.
Also, you can call in to GOA Radio Live to discuss this event with our Talk Show host, Bill Frady, from 6:00-8:00 pm tonight. Call 703-776-9264 to be on the show. GOA’s Larry Pratt will be interviewed by Frady next week.
The murder of 13 moviegoers last night in a Denver-area theater was horrific.
My prayers, and the prayers of our staff and members, go out to the families of the victims and those wounded in this attack.
Living in Colorado, this attack strikes close to home for me.
I was sad this morning, but now I’m angry.
I’m angry that the theater bans law-abiding citizens from arming themselves for self-defense.
I’m angry that this deranged lunatic murdered men, women and children in a senseless act of violence.
And I’m outraged that already, not even twelve hours after the shooting, the gun control vultures are circling the victims.
This morning, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken to the airwaves to exploit the blood of innocents to advance his radical anti-gun agenda.
While Colorado and the nation remain in a state of shock and grief, the Bloomberg political machine is callously exploiting this tragedy to churn out their anti-gun lies and rhetoric.
Make no mistake — this is a dangerous time right now for our gun rights.
President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the Presidential race and they’re desperate.
With a sinking economy and lackluster campaigns, they’re BOTH looking for any advantage they can muster.
And that means OUR Constitutionally-protected gun rights are certain to be in their sights.
You and I both know what President Obama thinks of gun owners . . .
. . . he thinks we’re “bitter” hicks, who “cling to our guns.”
But Mitt Romney’s record is no better. As Governor of Massachusetts he permanently banned an entire class of firearms.
Tragedies like last night’s movie theater shooting are just the sort of thing that the gun-banners have been waiting to exploit.
They will use this tragedy — and others like it — to call for “action.”
You and I both know their “call to action” means more gun control.
As gun owners and gun rights activists we MUST be vigilant in these times — not just in the defense of our loved ones, but in defense of our right to keep and bear arms.
With the UN “Small Arms Treaty” gun control meetings in New York City concluding exactly one week from today, it looks more likely than ever Barack Obama will attempt some sort of election-year gun grab.
In the name of public or international safety, and under pressure to conform to international “law,” that could mean a ban on inexpensive, imported ammunition . . .
. . . or a ban on full-capacity magazines . . .
. . . or an outright ban on civilian ownership of handguns . . .
. . . or worse yet, they could attack our very right to own firearms at all!
To make matters worse, Republican nominee Mitt Romney might help him!
You and I both know that Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg and left-wing international gun-grabbers will work every angle of this shooting as an excuse to restrict our rights.
Our right to defend ourselves and our families from violent thugs — and anti-gun politicians — hangs in the balance on a daily basis.
Here is what you can do to help:
*** Please pray for the families of the victims and those injured by the horrific attack near Denver.
*** Gun grabbers seize upon every outrage and crime, so we must always be prepared.
Executive Vice President
P.S. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken to the airwaves to exploit the blood of innocents to advance his radical anti-gun agenda.
Our right to defend ourselves and our families from violent thugs — and anti-gun politicians — hangs in the balance on a daily basis.
Please pray for the families of the victims and those injured by the horrific attack near Denver.
Gun grabbers seize upon every outrage and crime, so we must always be prepared. Please click here to chip in $15 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight against the gun control schemes of liberals like Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama.
Yet another attempt to control the free flow of information. Or is it the legitimate government function of enforcing laws against theft..?
I happen to agree with the principles involved, as far as theft of intellectual property goes. However, these laws, as proposed? No damned way period! Read on…
By now, you are no doubt aware that several websites have either gone totally or partially “dark” today in protest of the pernicious internet legislation that will be coming to a vote next week. Wikipedia and Google are just two of the websites which are protesting in this manner.
And while you may have not paid much attention to this story, you need to know that the “muzzle the web” legislation these sites are protesting could also affect your ability to get gun-related information on websites like GOA’s.
The reason is that S. 968 could, in its final form, allow the Brady Campaign to partially shut down our GOA website and our organization (plus many other pro-gun websites) with a series of factually accurate, but legally frivolous complaints.
The Senate bill and its House counterpart have accurately been called “a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”
True, many of the most serious “gun problems” are in the House counterpart. But the reality is this: We are within a few votes of killing the whole concept next week in the Senate with only 41 Senate votes.
But if we allow the so-called “anti-piracy” bill to go forward on the HOPE that the worst provisions will not make it into the final version -– and we fail to eliminate them -– the bill may be unstoppable.
Here are the “gun problems,” as we see them:
Section 103(b)(1) of H.R. 3261 allows any “holder of an intellectual property right” to demand that PayPal and other payment and advertising services stop providing services to organizations like ours, thereby shutting off our income.
How would they do this? Perhaps by arguing that we were stealing their intellectual property by quoting their lying misrepresentations in our alerts.
Is this legally frivolous? Sure it is. But the Brady Campaign is the King of Frivolous Complaints:
* Remember when the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission in 2007 to shut down GOA’s ability to post its candidate ratings on the Internet? They claimed that we were in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Thankfully, the FEC ruled in GOA’s favor, thus enabling us to continue posting candidate ratings without restraint.
* Remember when the Brady Campaign got 36 state and local jurisdictions to bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers –- not in the expectation of winning, but to drain the resources of the manufacturers in order to halt the manufacture of guns in America?
This “muzzle the web” legislation will throw the doors open to even more frivolous complaints. Could we defend ourselves? Yes, we could. We could file a counter notification under section 103(b)(5) and spend years defending ourselves. But the one thing we did learn during the 36 frivolous lawsuits is that the anti-gun forces in America have very deep pockets.
And the other problem is that, under section 104, our Internet providers would be insulated from liability for shutting us down. But they would receive no comparable insulation from legal liability if they refused to cut us off.
The Senate version, S. 968, has been amended, at the behest of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others, to provide many protections which were not in its initial form.
Under section 3, the Attorney General would go to court and would have to claim that, because of a hyperlink to an offending site, we were “primarily” engaged in the theft of intellectual property.
We would feel a lot better about these protections if the Attorney General were not Eric Holder, a ruthless ideologue who has demonstrated that he will go to any lengths to destroy the Second Amendment.
So the bottom line is this: H.R. 3261 and S. 968
would potentially empower the Brady Campaign and Eric Holder to go after our Internet site. To do so, they would have to make the same frivolous arguments and engage in the same lawless activity that they have done so often in the past.
But -– given that we’re within a few votes of snuffing out that risk by killing the bill in the Senate -– we believe it’s the better course of action to do so.
- Governor Schwarzenegger Joins Brady Chapter Leaders to Celebrate Signing of Ammo Bill (prweb.com)
- Brady Campaign State Scorecards: Most States Have Weak Gun Laws (prweb.com)
- A Tough Year for Gun Control’s Brady Campaign (pjmedia.com)
- Brady Campaign Mis-Information Continues (2ndamendmentright.org)
- Dealers say gun sales are strong; background checks hit a record (philly.com)
- Question of the Day: What’s the Right Age for Concealed Carry? | The Truth About Guns (2ndamendmentright.org)
- Leader of Park Service Retirees Laments Shooting (abcnews.go.com)
“The NRA is wrong again,” said Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke on Tuesday, in his 176th (and counting) blog post on the left-wing Huffington Post website. Helmke was upset because of three things we pointed out in our annual “More Guns, Less Crime” fact sheet and Grassroots Alert last week.
First, the number of guns has risen to an all-time high. Second, for decades Brady Campaign has repeatedly predicted with unfettered confidence that more guns would necessarily cause crime to rise. But third, the nation’s violent crime and murder rates have instead fallen to 35- and 45-year lows, respectively.
Our fact sheet and alert didn’t say that crime has gone down because the number of guns has risen. And we didn’t even mention that crime has gone down in large part because in the 1990s many states adopted laws that NRA called for, to require violent criminals to spend time behind bars, to increase the length of violent criminals’ prison sentences, and to reduce their ability to obtain parole and probation (we’ll do that in next year’s fact sheet. Thanks for the reminder, Paul).
All our fact sheet and alert pointed out was that, contrary to Brady Campaign predictions, an increase in guns didn’t cause crime to go up.
Nevertheless, Helmke whined, “The NRA is misleading again.” The NRA is trying “to wave and shout and dance and steal the credit” for crime going down. NRA’s leaders “treat us as fools.”
Helmke didn’t deny that there is less crime. And he didn’t deny that there are more guns. Instead, he paraphrased some of Violence Policy Center’s hogwash, saying, “the average number of guns per owner has gone up, but the percent of American households with a gun? That’s right: it’s gone down.”
What Helmke didn’t mention is that polls measuring the percentage of households that acknowledge having at least one gun don’t accurately measure gun ownership by household or the number of Americans who own guns.
In its 1996 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms in the United States (NSPOF), the Police Foundation identified one of the limits of surveys attempting to measure gun ownership by household.
“For households headed by a married couple, 49 percent of the husbands report a gun in the home, compared with just 36 percent of the wives. Since this difference is far larger than can be explained by chance, it appears that many wives either do not know about their husband’s guns or are reluctant to discuss it with a stranger. The NSPOF estimates based on a respondent’s report of all guns in the household is 107.2 million working firearms. The NSPOF estimate based on a respondent’s report of his or her own firearms is 192.1 million working firearms.”
Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck has noted that in his and Marc Gertz’s landmark survey of defensive firearm use, “50.1% of married men reported a household gun, but only 37.4% of married women did. . . . Fourteen consecutive General Social Surveys found married women to report household guns at lower levels than married men.”
Kleck added that a person is more likely to acknowledge that he or she own guns, than to acknowledge the ownership of guns by someone else in the household, but that while “it is most commonly a male who owns the household guns . . . . [M]arried women make up around 31% of the usual adult survey samples.”
Helmke also didn’t note (but Kleck did) that the percentage of people telling pollsters that they have guns in their homes dropped precipitously during the years of the Clinton Administration’s war against gun owners, from the 40+ percentage range, down into the 30s.
And there is one other, factor that Helmke didn’t take into account: The population of the country rises by about one percent, or three million, every year. Surveys began showing a decline in “household” gun ownership in the 1980s, but since 1985, for example, the population of the country has increased 30 percent, from 239 million to 310 million. That’s more than enough to compensate for the decline in “yes” responses to pollsters asking whether people have any guns in their homes.
So, we’d say we hate to be the one to tell you, Paul, but that wouldn’t be honest. We’re glad to tell you. There are more Americans owning more guns than ever before and, as we both agree, violent crime is way, way, down.
Well well well. Who would have thought…
On May 18, the Brady Campaign held a big shindig in Washington, D.C., to give this year’s “Sarah Brady Visionary Award” to now-former Hearst News Service White House reporter Helen Thomas.
In accepting the award, Thomas vilified the U.S. Supreme Court for declaring the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms, and vilified the Armed Forces for fighting the war on terrorism.
“The inept Supreme Court has found a way for all individuals to have a right to have a gun,” Thomas griped. “No Guns! What planet does the Supreme Court live on? . . . We’re living in an era when we send robots halfway around the world to kill people in their own country, and no one asks why. Let’s never give up hope that we can control deadly guns in this country.”
Before Thomas accepted the award, Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke read a statement from President Obama, who said, “Helen Thomas will always hold special place in my heart.” Sarah Brady called Thomas “the finest journalist of our generation.”
Mrs. Brady may wish to revise and extend her remarks, however. Thomas’s moment of adulation was brought to an abrupt halt on June 7, when Thomas resigned in disgrace for having said that Jews in Israel should go back to Germany or Poland, where, as the world knows, millions of unarmed Jews were imprisoned in concentration camps and, ultimately, murdered by the Nazis.
Once many years ago, while down at Denver General Hospital, some high power super Doc proceeded to chew on my butt because I was reading a hunting magazine in the driveway to the Emergency Department and it had, OH MY GOD!, a picture of a gun on the cover!
That friends, is a person that suffers from mental illness. As noted above… Anyways, right about then a D.G. crew brought in a bad guy that had a few well deserved holes in him. Seems a Denver Cop did what Cops do when confronted with deadly force. But like the better than thou Super Doc said; “Guns are only for killing and never do anyone any good!” Yeah… Right Doc!
But I digress, as usual… read on.
The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group’s two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks.
This year, they’ve insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They’ve given the states their worst “Brady grades” ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they’ve badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.
This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world’s most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group’s credibility by claiming “The evidence is overwhelming that the ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been ‘associated with uniform increases in crime.'”
If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There’s “evidence,” all right, and it’s certainly “overwhelming.” Today, there are 36 states with “shall issue” laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in “shall issue” states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don’t even require a permit to carry concealed.
“Uniform increases in crime”? The nation’s violent crime rate is at a 35-year low.
Since adopting “shall issue” laws, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia have had decreases in violent crime ranging from 26 to 53 percent.
Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady’s petition and $1.70 will get you …
Brady’s Push On Starbucks Continues: As we reported in February, the Brady Campaign has been plumbing the depths of desperation lately. In an attempt at maintaining its relevance, the beleaguered group has attacked Starbucks for allowing the lawful carry of firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.
As we’ve pointed out, the Brady Campaign has been quick to fabricate a “right” to feel free from fear, while angrily scoffing at the right to self-protection. To that end, last month the group encouraged its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition read.
Much has been written over the past few days about the Fort Hood incident. As usual, the Brady Bunch and others are calling for more gun control. As if weaponry on military bases are not already under strict control. Be that as it may my inbox has been filling up with various states of rage. I don’t really call it correspondence, after all, most up until now have been emotional venting ‘s. This includes some from people that are well educated, current and former military, and fellow emergency workers. Then, I opened up the mailbox this morning, and a friend had forwarded something that he had received first hand. This person is a trusted confidant, and for opsec reasons a few lines have been edited out to protect the source’s. So much for gun control…
H/T to Neil
This was sent to me supposedly from a 1st hand account from the friend of a friend. I believe it-you can choose to believe or disbelieve as you wish.
I thought you might find this interesting.
I received this from a friend today. The writer, a JAG (Lawyer) officer was
a first person participant in what took place at the Soldier Readiness
Center at Fort Hood on last Thursday. This is his personal
account of events. When you read this understand it was written after a very
long and very busy day. These are his words and phrasing.
> What happened.
Since I don’t know when I’ll sleep (it’s 4 am now) I’ll write what happened (the abbreviated version. the long one is already part of the investigation with more to come. I’ll not write about any part of the investigation that I’ve learned about since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation) .
Don’t assume that most of the current media accounts are very accurate.They’ re not. They’ll improve with time. Only those of us who were there really know what went down. But as they collate our statements they’ll get it right.
I did my SRP last week (Soldier Readiness Processing) but you’re supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it’s this big itchy growth on your shoulder). I am probably alive because I pulled a ———- and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building).
The Medical SRP building is off to the side. Realizing my mistake I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building.As I’m walking up to it the gunshots start. Slow and methodical. But continuous.
Two ambulatory wounded came out. Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood. Hearing the shots but not seeing the shooter, along with a couple other soldiers I stood in the street and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to “RUN!” I kept motioning people fast.
About 6-10 minutes later (the shooting continuous), two cops ran up, one
male, one female. We pointed in the direction of the shots. They headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away). Then a lot more gunfire. a couple minutes later a balding man in ACU’s came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically.
He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us. I don’t think he hit the couple other guys who were there. I did see the bullet holes later in the cars. First I went behind a tire and then looked under the body of the car. I’ve been trained how to respond to gunfire…but with my own weapon. To have no weapon I don’t know how to explain what that felt like. I hadn’t run away and stayed because I had thought about the consequences or anything like that. I wasn’t thinking anything through.
Please understand, there was no intention. I was just staying there because I didn’t think about running. It never occurred to me that he might shoot me. Until he started shooting in my direction and I realized I was unarmed.
Then the female cop comes around the corner. He shoots her. (according to the news account she got a round into him. I believe it, I just didn’t see it. He didn’t go down.) She goes down. He starts reloading. He’s fiddling with his mags. Weirdly he hasn’t dropped the one that was in his weapon. He’s holding the fresh one and the old one (you do that on the range when time is not of the essence but in combat you would just let the old mag go).
I see the male cop around the left corner of the building. (I’m about 15-20 meters from the shooter.) I yell at the cop, “He’s reloading, he’s reloading. Shoot him! Shoot him!) You have to understand, everything was quiet at this point. The cop appears to hear me and comes around the corner and shoots the shooter. He goes down. The cop kicks his weapon further away. I sprint up to the downed female cop. Another captain (I think he was with me behind the cars) comes up as well.
She’s bleeding profusely out of her thigh. We take our belts off and tourniquet her just like we’ve been trained (I hope we did it right…we didn’t have any CLS (combat lifesaver) bags with their awesome tourniquets on us, so we worked with what we had).
Meanwhile, in the most bizarre moment of the day, a photographer was standing over us taking pictures. I suppose I’ll be seeing those tomorrow. Then a soldier came up and identified himself as a medic. I then realized her weapon was lying there unsecured (and on “fire”). I stood over it and when I saw a cop yelled for him to come over and secure her weapon (I would have done so but I was worried someone would mistake me for a bad guy).
I then went over to the shooter. He was unconscious. A Lt Colonel was there and had secured his primary weapon for the time being. He also had a revolver. I couldn’t believe he was one of ours. I didn’t want to believe it. Then I saw his name and rank and realized this wasn’t just some specialist with mental issues. At this point there was a guy there from CID and I asked him if he knew he was the shooter and had him secured. He said he did.
I then went over the slaughter house. – the medical SRP building. No human should ever have to see what that looked like, and I won’t tell you. Just believe me. Please. there was nothing to be done there.
Someone then said there was someone critically wounded around the corner. I
ran around (while seeing this floor to ceiling window that someone had jumped through movie style) and saw a large African-American soldier lying on his back with two or three soldiers attending.
I ran up and identified two entrance wounds on the right side of his stomach, one exit wound on the left side and one head wound. He was not bleeding externally from the stomach wounds (though almost certainly internally) but was bleeding from the head wound. A soldier was using a shirt to try and stop the head bleeding. He was conscious so I began talking to him to keep him so. He was 42, from North Carolina, he was named something Jr., his son was named something III and he had a daughter as well. His children lived with him. He was divorced. I told him the blubber on his stomach saved his life. He smiled.
A young soldier in civvies showed up and identified himself as a combatmedic. We debated whether to put him on the back of a pickup truck. A doctor (well, an audiologist) showed up and said you can’t move him, he has a head wound. we finally sat tight.
I went back to the slaughterhouse. they weren’t let ting anyone in there. Not even medics. finally, after about 45 minutes had elapsed some cops showed up in tactical vests. someone said the TBI building was unsecured. They headed into there. All of a sudden a couple more shots were fired.People shouted there was a second shooter. A half hour later the SWAT showed up. there was no second shooter. that had been an impetuous cop apparently, but that confused things for a while.
Meanwhile I went back to the shooter. the female cop had been taken away.
A medic was pumping plasma into the shooter. I’m not proud of this but I went up to her and said “this is the shooter, is there anyone else who needs attention… do them first”. she indicated everyone else living was attended to. I still hadn’t seen any EMTs or ambulances.
I had so much blood on me that people kept asking me if I was ok. but that was all other people’s blood. Eventually (an hour and a half to two hours after the shootings) they started landing choppers. they took out the big African American guy and the shooter. I guess the ambulatory wounded were all at the SRP building. Everyone else in my area was dead.
I suppose the emergency responders were told there were multiple shooters. I heard that was the delay with the choppers (they were all civilian helicopters) . They needed a secure LZ. but other than the initial cops who did everything right, I didnt’ see a lot of them for a while.
I did see many a soldier rush out to help their fellows/sisters. There was one female soldier, I dont’ know her name or rank but I would recognize her anywhere, who was everywhere helping people. A couple people, mainly civilians, were hysterical, but only a couple. One civilian freaked out when I tried to comfort her when she saw my uniform. I guess she had seen the shooter up close.
A lot of soldiers were rushing out to help even when we thought there was another gunman out there. this Army is not broken no matter what the pundits say. Not the Army I saw.
Then they kept me for a long time to come. oh, and perhaps the most surreal
thing, at 1500 (the end of the workday on Thursdays) when the bugle sounded we all came to attention and saluted the flag. In the middle of it all.
This is what I saw. It can’t have been real. But this is my small corner of what happened.
Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.
Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.
And then there’s Garen Wintemute, of the University of California (Davis), who in September released another of his “studies” in favor of gun control. His new piece is called “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching.”
“Gun shows” are just the hook, however. While repeating gun control supporters’ mantra about the need to run instant background checks on people who buy guns from private parties at gun shows, Wintemute admits important factors that undercut his goal. First, he notes that straw purchases—the very purpose of which is to thwart the background checks he pretends to be concerned about—”are a major source of crime guns.” Second, he admits that “The proportion of all gun sales nationwide that occurs at gun shows is relatively small” and that “most sales at gun shows involve licensed retailers,” who are already required to perform background checks.
As you probably have already deduced, Wintemute has his sights on something more than just requiring background checks on all gun sales at shows. Eventually getting to the bottom line, he concludes that “Regulating private party sales just at gun shows will not end the problems associated with these anonymous and undocumented transactions. Most of them occur elsewhere already. … It would be preferable to regulate private party gun sales generally.” That’s the law in California, where private sales are prohibited, transfers of firearms are delayed by a 10-day waiting period, and sales are permanently recorded by the government.
If you think you’ve heard it before, you’re right. In 1976, the Brady Campaign, then named National Council to Control Handguns, advocated delaying handgun sales and registering handguns, before banning the possession of handguns altogether. Let’s hope Wintemute is as successful today as the Brady Campaign was a generation ago.