Gun Rights

The Schumers Need to Rework Their Tired Gun Control Routine

Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer employ the same old anti-gun rhetoric.

|

Comedian Amy Schumer is the hot entertainer of the moment, but can that last when she's already regurgitating hoary old ideas that weren't so amusing the first time around?

Specifically, Schumer has teamed up with her cousin, the very un-funny Sen. Charles Schumer, to promote a rewarmed serving of gun control proposals that the lawmaker has been trying to inflict on the American public for years. The hook for the legislative repeat was a lethal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, during a showing of Amy Schumer's Trainwreck. The shooter, John Russell Houser, purchased his gun legally after passing a background check that failed to pick up his history of mental illness or arrest for arson. This came after Charleston killer Dylann Roof also legally purchased a weapon after the FBI-administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) failed to pick up on a drug bust.

"We desperately need to improve the background check system, which helps prevent the adjudicated mentally ill and violent criminals from getting their hands on a dangerous weapon," Schumer (the lawmaker, not the funny one) said in a press release. "That's why I am announcing new legislation that will incentivize states to submit all records into the federal gun database."

This idea for hoovering up and centralizing sensitive information isn't a new one, and it's likely to founder on the rocks of opposition from gun rights activists and mental health professionals alike.

"There's a lot of criticism about denying more people their Second Amendment rights based on mental illness," notes Prof. James Jacobs, Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law and author of Can Gun Control Work?, published in 2002. "Mental health professionals think it will deter people from seeking help and will stigmatize the mentally ill."

"Would we say that anybody who has ever seen a therapist is disqualified from owning a gun?" asks Jacobs, who wonders where you could draw the line.

Individuals might avoid seeking help if they're worried that treatment will end up as an entry in a government database—but so might the family and friends of troubled people who think a loved one needs care, but fear a loss of civil liberties as a result.

People might be even more reticent if they realized just how arbitrary the use of government records can be.

"On one extreme, I've seen at least one case where an applicant was unable to appeal his denial because local police entered an ominous but vague warning in his NICS entry that he was 'dangerous,' and thus he had no way of even knowing what motivated police to enter this record in the first place," notes Jennifer Carlson, an assistant professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto and author of this year'sCitizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline.  "And on the other extreme, I've come across cases where individuals with repeated domestic violence issues–including documented physical harm–are told they can have 'one more chance' despite–at least in my view–presenting some pretty clear-cut evidence as to their 'danger to self and others.'"

"This level of arbitrariness is a problem," she adds. "And I don't think anyone on either side of the gun debate really has come to terms with how uneven our records are–whether because of poor procedure, lack of resources, or arbitrary decision-making."

Carlson suggests that "if executed properly, the Schumer bill could address some of these issues." But if executed poorly—and the federal government does seem to have a bit of a track record for screwing the pooch—Schumer's proposals could make things worse. "Because these compliance mechanisms fall under administrative procedure," says Carlson, "there is no expectation of due process." That threatens to turn what the funny Schumer describes as "sensible measures and restrictions" into nothing more than collections of increasingly sensitive data with which to be arbitrary.

Of course, all of this accumulated sensitive data, however arbitrarily administered, only affects gun sales if people's names are run through the FBI database. The Schumers allude to that point, ominously warning that "under federal law, private citizens may sell weapons at gun shows, on the internet, or anywhere else they choose without performing background checks on the purchasers, allowing criminals to purchase guns with ease."

Banning such private sales has been a long-term goal of the lawmaking Schumer. That's "probably a good idea," suggests Jacobs, but he acknowledges that it's "very easy to get around" such restrictions on inherently private transactions. Some law-abiding buyers and sellers might be willing to submit to background check requirements, but he concedes that others would not.

How many might fall in the "would not" camp? Just look at the Schumers' own New York. A recent requirement that state residents register their "assault weapons"—semiautomatic firearms that look scary—met with a whopping 5 percent compliance rate. Out of an estimated one million assault weapons in the state, only 44,485 were registered.

Neighboring Connecticut managed to get obedience to a similar requirement up to an underwhelming 15 percent.

The vast majority of gun owners in two states not known as especially friendly to firearms use responded to registration requirements with a collective flipping of the bird. Is there any doubt they'd treat a requirement that they run each transfer of a gun to a friend or neighbor through the federal background check system with equal defiance?

That said, the University of Toronto's Carlson is concerned that "we are quickly becoming a society ruled by the record" in which everything from employment opportunities to freedom of travel is circumscribed by data generated by the "bloated criminal justice system." Reining that system and its databases in would be great, but so long as we have to live with those records and their power over our lives, their administration needs to be vastly improved and made more transparent and accessible. "This is an issue that transcends well beyond the boundaries of the gun debate," she says.

That doesn't seem to be the Schumers' goal, though. Their focus is entirely on collecting ever-more information about us in order to restrict access to firearms.

For his part, Jacobs criticizes "the whole idea that somehow, before the fact, you can identify a mass murderer." He doesn't see much hope in that approach. He also doesn't see the Schumers' latest rehashing of gun control dreams making it through Congress—an assessment with which Carlson agrees.

But we've seen this show before. If history is any guide, the Schumers and their friends will keep coming back with schemes to subject us to the arbitrary dictates of an already bloated criminal justice system. These schemes will, again, stand little hope of preventing the crimes at which they're allegedly targeted—or of being obeyed by the people subject to their dictates.

Amy and Charles really need to work on their material—because this routine is getting very old.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ranking law faculties by scholarly impact

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer, no relation,…”

    “Schumer has teamed up with her cousin, …”

    Who do I blame, the headline writer or Tuccille?

    1. It was an implied, “fascist” cousin.

    2. Tuccille is just making it clear that he’s not in any way related to either of these two geniuses.

    3. Schumer needs to hurry up and do the right thing for his country, following Teddy Kennedy’s lead.

      And I don’t care if a logchipper is involved or not.

  2. “Because these compliance mechanisms fall under administrative procedure,” says Carlson, “there is no expectation of due process.”

    So, like the No Fly List at the time, once you’re in it, there’s no path to getting yourself out of the database? I guess we have the right to petition for redress of grievances but the government doesn’t have to listen. And arbitrarily compiled databases are probably exactly as effective a tool for law enforcement to fix our world as accurate ones.

    1. This concept of no expectation of due process for administrative procedures has always raised my ire. In no way does the First Amendment limit what portion of the government can be petitiioned for a redress of grievance.

      An administrative activity of any branch of the government must be subject to petition. Period.

      1. administrative law such as this can NOT be used to remove one;s basic civil rights. They are not part of the judicial branch, thus no judicial powers. VA cannot “determine” anything about a Vet’s right to arms.

    2. There are two decades of regulatory record on appealing a denial by NICS, where the govenment cannot hide behind a National Security argument.

  3. “Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer, no relation, trout the same old anti-gun rhetoric”

    “Specifically, Schumer has teamed up with her cousin, the very un-funny Sen. Charles Schumer”

    Not to be petty, but if they are cousins they are related.

    1. They are part of the gun grabbing family, FWIW.

  4. Wikipedia (for what that’s worth) reads that her father is Chuck’s second cousin. I’m not sure what the hell that makes her and him. Probably nothing.

    1. Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
      Lone Starr: What’s that make us?
      Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing! Which is what you are about to become.

    2. “My father’s second cousin showed me one simple trick that lets me make $327 a day working from home robbing people of their constitutional rights. Just last week I paid cash for a brand new Lada with radio and intermittent air conditioning. Find out more here: gungrab.to”

    3. 2nd cousin once removed.

      1. Sounds great! When can we expect he will be removed?

    4. “I said we’re kissin’ cousins an’ that’s what makes it alright” -Elvis Presley

    5. computing…
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/in…..ond+cousin
      second cousin once removed | (no other relation possible)

    6. Second Cousin Once Removed probably. You cousins kids are your First Cousins Once Removed so that sort-a lines up…. Removed as in one more generation down. Thier kids would be you First Cousins Twice Removed and so on….

    7. Would that be a 2nd-cousin once removed?

    8. Assholes?

  5. …trout the same old anti-gun rhetoric”

    Look chum, the gun control left is floundering and desperately casting about for anyone in the 2nd Amendment camp to take the bait. There’s nothing fishy here, just the same old carping and I’d bet a fin that it goes nowhere.

    1. Well played sir….well played indeed.

    2. Well done, sir.

      * clapping, but not standing *

    3. Plenty of bottom-feeders to snare.

    4. Keep going. Lets see how deep this thing is, or are you just trolling.

    5. I’d say they’re gonna need a bigger boat

  6. Would some of the R front runners just please reiterate that there is no “gun show loophole”? FFS any federally licensed firearms dealer has to run their customers through the background check. At a gun show, at their shop, anywhere. And a private sale to my brother, my cousin, or a guy on Craigslist does not, whether it is at a gun show, my garage or the gun range (though if I am aware that they are by law prohibited from owning a gun, then I am also guilty of a crime).

    1. “…any federally licensed firearms dealer has to run their customers through the background check….. And a private sale to my brother, my cousin, or a guy on Craigslist does not, whether it is at a gun show, my garage or the gun range”

      Holy semantics. Would it make you feel better if they called it the “non-FFL private sale loophole”?

      It’s a loophole because it completely skirts NICS. I’m a pretty staunch gun rights supporter, but trying to defend this makes us look silly. What’s so bad about having to drive to an FFL to transfer a firearm?

      1. “What’s so bad about having to drive to an FFL to transfer a firearm?”
        Just ask the people who live in Washington who can’t even hand a gun to a friend in their own home thats the problem.

        1. As a WA resident, I can tell you that there has been just about zero compliance with that law statewide. It’s pretty unenforceable, and I’m unaware of any attempted prosecution that will be the test case for it’s legality.

          A friend of mine who is a former WA state senator tells me that there will be either a bill in our next legislative session (We have a part time legislature that runs Jan-April) or a new initiative, to straighten this mess out. It does;t help that our Governor, Jay Inslee, is little more than a communist.

          The only good thing about him is that he is reputedly lazy.

      2. My grandfather is 86. He owns a police special .38 revolver. When he passes away (may not be until his late 90s, given his mom’s longevity, and his very good health), my mom will probably have to fly out to make arrangements since his estranged current wife will not. Since my mom is retired, getting the gun transfered to her, as she is not a California resident any longer, is probably going to be a huge pain in the tail. And since she doesn’t like guns, I’ll ask for it, and I sure as heck am not traveling to Cali twice, once to initiate a background check with a FFL, and another time to pick it up two weeks later. Because of our lovely Dear Leader, I can’t afford that. This is just one practical example of the results of closing this loophole, as California has done. I’m sure there are others.

        1. I would just smuggle it out of the state ASAP. Get it away from those Lenin loving scum.

        2. I’ve experienced California’s gun regs personally. A couple years ago, I sold an H&K pistol through Gunbroker.com to a guy in SoCal. Just finding an FFL on my end who was willing to ship to California was pain. Eventually I did, but once the gun was shipped to the buyer’s FFL, the California Bureau of Firearms (!) seized the pistol because (IIRC) it came with 12-round magazines. After a couple days, they released the gun back to the FFL, who then transferred it to my buyer (after the appropriate waiting period). I’d insured the gun against loss, damage, or theft, but I would imagine that doesn’t cover instances of theft by government.

        3. If your grandfather has owned that revolver for 30-yrs or more, there is a definite possibility that CA has no remaining record of it as their data storage was so limited at one time that each new sale would bounce an older record into the dust-bin.
          Also, you could have his atty file a request with the CA DoJ/Firearms Bureau for a listing of all firearms registered to the gentleman. Cost is IIR $25 – and the form is available on their website.
          If there is no record, the atty for the estate could just convey the firearm to you. But, the safe way would be for him to ship it to your local FFL, fill out a 4473, and then to have him NICS it. – all nice and proper.

        4. Travel out to California for the approprate events, rent a car, drive with the gun in a locked hard side case with no ammo, and amo, if any, in a second locked hard side case. Once in Nevada, turn in the rental car, get on a plane back home, the handgun in the same two cases that make car transport legal in California. Make sure those two cases are in CHECKED luggage. At the ticket counter declare at check-in “I have unloaded, secured firearms to declare in my checked luggage”. They will direct you to the special TSA area for taking care of this. THEY may/may not physically inspect, but will place a tag inside the checked baggage “firearms checked by TSA”, then take possession of the luggage. Unless you live in a state (New York New JerseyMaryland, Illinois, that I know of.. find out yourself) that has phoney requirements (Mother May I Cards, etc) to possess firearms, once you get to your own state. collect hyour checked luggage and get yourself home as if nothing is wrong.. as there IS nothing wrong. You are not a California resident, and no FFL can transfer any firearm to you within California, so don’t even try. They will likelyh seize it.

      3. It’s pathetic to see someone who is so happy to ask permission to exercise a right. “What’s so bad about asking permission to attend a church?” “What’s wrong with the cops searching your house – if you haven’t committed a crime . . . big deal?”
        People with your ignorance and lack of appreciation for what liberty is are really bigger threats to our freedom than the outright tyrannical.
        “Ah, it’s just Jews. I’m not a Jew.”

        1. Nailed it… Bravo

      4. Shall not be infringed…

        CB

      5. the background check is not free. it is also, beyond unenforceable, ineffective. because most people see times there should be exceptions (immediate family, temporary, etc), so it will never be completely universal.

        the term “loophole” is also misleading. it implies a way to get around a requirement. the requirement is only on FFL sales. the government has no business in a private sale. i don’t have to check someones driving record or insurance status to sell them a car. they have to answer for that if they register it for use on the roads. (and that is for use on the roads… not ownership). however, a business in car sales has to… why? because the government can regulate commerce (business) but not private matters.

        1. The old car insurance loophole.

        2. Some states – CA is one – require private party sales to be conducted through FFL’s, just so a background check can be conducted.

        3. You should also point out the other major issue that anti-gunners never seem to mention. That private sales between individuals, where the merchandise will be shipped across state lines, DO have to go through NICS, by way of transfer through an FFL.

          So all these shrieking harpies, raving about internet sales of guns are full of shit on that point as well.

        4. Further, FEDERAL LAW establishes that the background check is only mandated when an FFL sells a firearm out of HIS OWN INVENTORY. There is NO requirement for FFL’s to run BGC on private or interstate transfers. Purelhy optional. NO FFL is required to run these classes of checks.. ONLY for guns already in his own inventory.

          Washington’s new law, bought by Bloomie’s corrupt money. requires the voluntary services of a federally licensed agent to comlly with a state requirement. This is not legal.

      6. Its not a loophole if private sales were intentionally exempted, which they were.. In other words, it would be a loophole if the intention was that all sales went through NICS, but that is not the case. No special action or process is being used to circumvent an intent of the law, ie. no loophole exists.

      7. Because using the label “gun show” loophole makes it astonishingly clear to me that their target is not just the loophole but the gun show as well,

        Maybe I’ve been away too long but in my estimation far more private sales happen in living rooms between casual, or even closer, acquaintances than happen at gun shows. Allowing these fascists to package the debate in terms that further their political goals is unadulterated folly.

      8. When NICS was first being enacts,the anti-gun lobby worked to BAR ordinary citizens from using the NICS system to run background checks on the buyers of their private gun sales.

        They got what they wanted.

        But,I believe most gunowners would be fine with background checks on their private gun sales if they could do as gun dealers do now;make a phone call,have the BC run,and get a rapid response and no gov’t agency keeping records of it.

        Instead,the anti-gun lobby wants people to have to go to a police station or other gov”t agency,pay a fee,and of course,records will be kept.
        Private sales are just that;private,and none of gov’t’s business.

      9. because FBI stats prove that fewer than one percent of “crime guns” were acquired by the disqualified person who went on to commit a crime involving that gun. That’s why. What that does is mandate that 99+% of private sales at gun shows must now pay the price of the

        1. My question is THIS: in Washington State, how can ANY gun show sale, private or FFL, be to a disqualified person with these rules already in place, voluntarily? Gun show loophole? Fie on you liars. The ONLY “service” requiring a current background check at all gun show sales is to effect a statewide registration scheme.. one of the clearly stated goals of the Bloomburg Team that lied and bought us the new bill. I prefer to buy without a current background check because I firmlhy believe Fed and State (and country, for tha tmatter) have NO compelling interest in knowing I purchased another gun at last week’s gun show. And THAT is what they want. Ask Bloomie and his Mad Mamas.

      10. Because criminals would not submit to the checks. Straw purchasers are already committing a felony if they purchase a gun with the intent to resell. People like me would be the ones affected. I collect old guns. I buy from other collectors, sometimes from veterans. Sometimes I make trades. When I buy from a dealer, I undergo the background checks. Having me pay $25.00 and forcing some veteran’s widow to spend an hour at a gun shop filling out forms is not going to make anyone any safer. Probably the opposite. Sometimes the guns I buy come from homes where they are not properly secured, and in homes where the people do not feel comfortable with a gun in the house. I pay them a fair price, and the guns go into a vault. All the new background legislation would do is make it slightly more difficult and expensive for legal gun owners to buy or trade guns with each other. And it comes from folks who are happy with any new restriction on gun ownership, but are not honest enough to say “I want to ban guns”.

      11. No half way responsible gun owner wants to arm a criminal or lunatic, but Chucks wish list of infringements has nothing to do with keeping guns away from dangerous people. He and his fellow travelers are only interested in building a database of honest people, pre-confiscation database.

        If their idea was stopping people from unknowingly selling a gun to a criminal or lunatic the FBI’s NICS database would be open to use by anyone without charge and as long as the current requirement that the records be deleted after approval was enforced responsible people would use it.

        In no way would it really reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who are prohibited from having them but at least a person could know that they weren’t the ones who supplied the gun used in a particular crime.

        1. Most of the people I buy from are big collectors, or veterans. I rarely sell, unless I need funds for a big purchase. But sometimes i get the sense during a deal that the purchaser has legal issues, or something they are being evasive about.. I would not hesitate to let the sheriff know about the person.

        2. Most of the people I buy from are big collectors, or veterans. I rarely sell, unless I need funds for a big purchase. But sometimes i get the sense during a deal that the purchaser has legal issues, or something they are being evasive about.. I would not hesitate to let the sheriff know about the person.

      12. Well, let’s break down the ways it doesn’t work;

        -To actually enforce, you’d have to register all the guns or somehow track who has what gun. That’s bad juju territory in and of itself.

        But lets pretend that for some reason we don’t need to register guns to make this actually work, because suddenly we have 100% compliance.

        It’s still:

        – an administrative pain in the ass. Hugely increases the strain on the NICS system and adds cost both to taxpayers and gun buyers in the form of not only upgrades to the system, but also by
        – Forcing people to drive significant distances to show up to a store at the same time as another person they may never have met before

        – wait around for half an hour

        – pay extra money so that they can get the FFL to run the backround check in the first place.

        OK, so, we have already achieved 100% compliance on a this very controversial program without registration, so let’s just go ahead and pretend for a second that what I just described isn’t actually a huge pain that forces people to spend more time and money buying guns. What exactly is the payoff for all that stuff?

        – A system that doesn’t work anyway!!
        Plenty of mass shooters or criminals have passed a background check, either because of a records screw up where state files were never shared with the feds, or whatever. At the same time, plenty of regular guys who are not criminals are denied valid transfers because of vague BS but in by local PD.

  7. Amy’s anti-gun shtick is a literal blowjob in the mind’s eye of certain entertainment gate-keepers. No need for butterpuss to suck a load down or tongue a starfish- just cleverly hate on a Glock, bitch, and like the rest of the motherfuckers on the Hollywood comedy circuit you get a show and a movie and free pills and pot for life. Fuck guns up the barrel and receive your gold porridge from the big boys and girls who hold the keys to a charmed life.

    1. Now, now Agile Cyborg, a good many here have assured me that if I don’t like Amy Schumer, if I think she’s a leftist shill, it must be because I’m anti-semitic.

      1. At least she isn’t a part of the absolutely fucking terrible mush of comedians that’s been regurgitated from the Second-City-to-SNL machine in the past 10 years or so.

      2. She’s a lefty and funny, especially when she’s not preaching.

        1. …and funny

          Cite please.

          1. Seriously, she’s a nasty twat and isn’t remotely funny. She plays big on this modern cynicism thing, which is boring and passe as fuck anyway.

    2. Now, now Agile Cyborg, a good many here have assured me that if I don’t like Amy Schumer, if I think she’s a leftist shill, it must be because I’m anti-semitic.

  8. “Poor procedure, lack of resources, or arbitrary decision-making.”

    Welcome to gummint. Although lack of resources can also translate into “we spent all of the money and didn’t get anything done!”

  9. Amy Schumer isn’t funny and people who think otherwise are stupid and pretending.

    This is an example of ‘we need to do something’ legislation. Doesn’t matter if the legislation is effective or not. It makes people feel good.

    1. Doesn’t matter if the legislation is effective or not.

      Oh, it will be effective alright. Effective at giving the state license to decide who can and can’t legally own a gun. And that’s what they want.

    2. Don’t mock what you don’t understand. I legitimately find her show funny. Not every sketch is a hit, but lots of funny in there. Her standup is so-so.

      1. Her humor isn’t exactly nuanced and subtle.

      2. So, you find the writers for her show funny.

  10. The Schumers Need to…

    Pound sand?

    Go climb a tree?

    Take a long walk off of a short pier?

    1. Suicide pact? Lots of people I don’t like really need to commit suicide. In fact, a mass suicide amongst democrat ranks would greatly improve this country.

  11. Who did the typography and layout for this article? And will they share some of those drugs with me?

      1. Apparently, someone heard my whining and fixed it.

  12. Why is Glock so popular? Is it the LEO discount that gets them sales?

    1. I hate the Glock, never understood the love, but it has many, many fanboys. I just bought a Walter PPQ 40, and it is true love. Never thought my H&K would be supplanted, but it has. There is a new H&K like the PPQ out, will take a look at it.

      Oh, and Shumer is funny, but will now avoid her due to this anti-freedom shtick.

      1. Her and that Aussie fellow are both funny. I enjoy their standup routines. Heck, even Jeffries’ gun control rant is funny.

        That new striker-fired HK line is smart looking. I’ve always loved the HK form. However, there’s a PPQ M2 threaded 9mm that’s tugging on my conscience.

    2. It’s lightweight? for the doughnut-eating, Starbucks-drinking cops.

    3. It was sold to many departments (NYPD stands out) as the most simple replacement for the revolver, requiring a minimal amount of retraining, since it had the familiar “double-action only” trigger pull that departments like NYPD and LAPD required at the time.
      If they could have only told their troops to keep their finger out of the trigger guard when holstering their weapon, a lot of self-inflicted gunshot wounds could have been avoided.

    4. Relatively inexpensive and (from what I’m told) super durable – they will literally last forever. I own a Sig myself, but it was one if their pricier ones

      1. Just like modern cars there will never be a usable antique Glock. Plastic guns like plastic cars are intended to self destruct and be irreparable. Why do you think police departments replace their guns so often, they don’t wear them out practicing.

    5. The Glock is a good handgun for people who need or want a handgun but don’t really want to learn a lot about guns. It’s the firearm equivalent of the bottom-end, econo-box automobile.

      But what a business model! Approximate cost to manufacture at the end of the factory line – including labor, overhead, etc. – is about $75. MSRP is what, about $500?

      I’ve shot them, I even own a Glock 20, but I still say that real friends don’t let friends own Glocks.

  13. The longer this debate goes on, the less I like the idea of encouraging the Government (that ever flowing font of incompetence and self-importance) to examine the records of citizen’s mental health with an eye to curtailing their civl rights. Oh, sure, the notion of keeping firearms out of the hands of the cracked has appeal, but when you get right down to it it makes to unfounded assumptions;

    1) That the mental health industry is founded on science rather than art, and therefore can make a dispassionate yes/no decision on “is this person unbalanced?”.

    and

    2) That the government is honest. Or honest enough to be trusted with a way to deny citizens their fundamental rights.

    This is an awful precedent. How long before people who may not own guns because of their menial illness are also barred from public speech? Or from voting. How long before some stooge decides that all Climate Change skeptics are mentally unbalanced? Or all Black Panthers?

    This is an authority the government simply should not have.

    1. From the TV show Firefly,Reverend Book; ” a government is a body of people notably ungoverned.”

      The Constitution’s main purpose is to limit GOVERNMENT.
      but they have escaped it.
      “it’s time to feed the hogs.”

    2. The best solution to a lunatic with a gun is for a normal person to shoot them, you can’t do that if you don’t have a gun and know how to use it. I don’t have anything against lunatics in general, I’ve met too many “normal” people. Most of them are harmless and the quicker the truly dangerous ones get killed the safer everybody will be. (And there won’t be nearly as much innocent blood for politicians to dance in.)

  14. on the one hand…

    “Out of an estimated one million assault weapons in the state, only 44,485 were registered.”

    shouldn’t this be “alleged” assault weapons?

    On the other hand…

    Aren’t all weapons “assault” weapons if used to assault someone? Knife, Hammer, Ice Pick, Brick, Cars, Gravity. All have been used by someone to assault someone else.

    1. It helps to know that, unlike “assault rifle”, “assault weapon” is a term with no firm definition. In effect it means “Any firearm the speaker finds scary-looking”. Gun grabbers made up the term to give the impression that they were trying to crack down on ownership of fully automatic weapons, which are not a problem except in Hollywoodland and are broadly illegal anyway. When they have tried to express what the term means in am manner that can be administrated, the result is typically a laundry list of scary/cool looking features, few of which make a firearm actually more dangerous. One consequence of this is that people who own forearms cannot easily tell if their ones they own are “Assault Weapons”, and if they are comfortable with the firearms in question that notion that they might belong to this scary category may simply not occur to them.

      1. CA has an illustrated AW list that is available on the Firearms Bureau website.

      2. I remember when DHS made a massive purchase of AR style rifles, calling them “Defensive Weapons” same type other branches of gummint were calling “assault weapons” at the same time. Reminds me of that perverted excuse of a prezzydunce with whom we were inflicted some years back, the guy who struggled with the meaning of the word “IS”/

        1. Those “Personal Defense Carbines” were selective fire and were specified with normal capacity magazines that “are only good for randomly killing a bunch of people quickly.”

      3. My favorite is “ghost guns”. Whoever came up with that one is impressive.

    2. As opposed to ‘hugging weapons’?

    3. It cracks me up that some gun-grabbers will say, “You don’t need an AR-47 or an AK-15 for hunting! All you need is a bolt-action rifle!” … When the rounds used by those bolt-action hunting rifles are actually fucking whopper-sized missiles compared to the rounds used by so-called “assault weapons”.

      … Not that they wouldn’t ban them all if they had the chance. I’m just amused by their ignorance of the very thing they propose to regulate.

      1. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
        it’s about the people retaining the ability to “alter or to abolish” a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
        the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People’s right to keep and bear arms.
        The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
        the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

        Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

        …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. “

    4. My grandfather carried a U.S. M1917 Enfield at the battle of the Marne and at Chateau Thierry. Though a bolt action rifle, I can guarantee it was used in assaults, as well as temporary defensive actions. Eventually the dhimmicrats will get around to proposing bans on such rifles because it was used in WAR!

      1. Exactly. The “military-style” classification that gun-grabbers use is screwy for so many reasons.

        A Colt 1851 Navy cap-and-ball revolver was used in tons of wars. Lever-action rifles were the “assault rifles” of yesteryear. Will those be banned?

        Also, why is the AR-15 inherently “military-style” and dangerous? What if they had adopted the FN-SCAR to replace it? Would the AR-15 be OK then?

  15. This election is going to be a three ring circus. If not already.

    1. Every national elelction, with rare and worrying exceptions, has been a three ring circus, complete with clowns, performing ponies, and dancing chickens in every corner.

  16. “Because these compliance mechanisms fall under administrative procedure,” says Carlson, “there is no expectation of due process.” That threatens to turn what the funny Schumer describes as “sensible measures and restrictions” into nothing more than collections of increasingly sensitive data with which to be arbitrary.

    I suspect both Schumers and their gun grabbing allies consider that to be a feature, not a bug. Also, shouldn’t “funny” be in scare quotes since technically neither of them are actually funny?

    1. The first time I really became aware of Chuck S. was when a coworker had been watching the Waco hearings and told me about some of it. I have never been very political, so I had not been paying much attention. He observed that Shumer was “perfectly comfortable with the deaths of those children, because their parents might have had a gun”. I went back and watched some of the hearings, and he was right. Since then, I have found it easy to define my stance on complicated political issues. For the most part, all I have to do is find out where Chuck stands, and just go with the opposite.

  17. Apparently neither Schumer understands the meaning of the word “infringed”.

    Or cares.

    1. My perception of leftists is that they have the cognitive capabilities of a small dog. Like a chihuahua.

    2. Sure they do, it means stopping a man from using the Ladies Toilet.

  18. Had John Russell Houser been convicted of Arson or adjudicated as a threat to himself or others? No. So, what would be the basis of denying him of his rights prior to this incident?

    Had Dylann Roof been convicted of drug possession? Again, No, he had not.

    So, there were no loopholes in the background check system. Neither of these men should have been, under the law, prevented from exercising their rights. Those of you who think we should lower the bar to arrests or suspicions had better think long and hard about that standard, because it is the standard of accusation, gossip and innuendo. Surely even your rights are more precious to you than that.

    1. People have a very foolish understanding of what their rights are and the significance of protecting them from infringement by power. But I guess they can’t be blamed for living the life of liberty and not having done anything to earn it.

    2. “denying him of his rights”

      If they can be denied, they aren’t rights… they’re privileges.

      CB

      1. rights are not absolute; they can be restricted by a court of law,employing due process.

    3. But…….but……if you have enough words on pieces of paper in the right order, then………Utopia!

    4. Seems to me I recall that that Roof character was under indictment for a misdemeanour drug charge, not a felony charge. Under indictment is a disqualifying action IF that indicement is for a felony. Thus his record, as far as NICS goes, was indeed clean.
      Further, there are far too many “felony” crimes so labelled that should NOT be disqualifying events but are.. simply because they are called “felony”. Failure to pay child support, behind a certain amount on student loans, can also be disqualifying. A minor non-physical “domestic villence” charge can be disqualifying, (getting into a shouting match with her, the neighbour calls, copppers show up, SOMEONE always goes downtown… no more guns, no one hurt or even threatened). How about the divorce lawyers who automatically file a “no contact order” against the spouse of the one filing.. just to be nasty, KNOWING the recipient of such an order is no threat whatever, often has moved to a different state, but the EXISTENCE of an ungrounded restraining order is a disqualifhying event for firearms possession.

      And you want to give MORE flimsy excuses for FedGov to disarm us?

  19. “And I don’t think anyone on either side of the gun debate really has come to terms with how uneven our records are–whether because of poor procedure, lack of resources, or arbitrary decision-making.”

    Well, it is run by the government so it should be just terribly done, right?

    Also, this entire debate is meaningless. Justice is repayment (to the victim). NAP is violated, jury trial, repayment is made to the victim or victim’s representative up to the entire amount taken (eye for eye, life for life, dollar for dollar). Then the offender has repaid their debt and can go on with their life.

    This counterproductive “rehabilitation” (without repayment) system we’re stuck in has ruined several generations’ concept of Justice. Also, especially in this case, it creates 2nd class citizens who get harassed by the police if they dare act like a 1st class citizen.

    To be sure, if one person hurt another, it’s not up to me to tell the harmed party that their punishment didn’t go far enough. It’s none of my business.

    1. That’s why it is called the “Department of Just Us”.

  20. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  21. “… assault weapons”?semiautomatic firearms that look scary BADASS”

    Fixed

    1. +1 black shoulder thing that goes up

      1. Like the one the alien had in the movie “Predator”?

  22. Has anyone else noticed that the two Schumers have the same sized boobs? Must run in the family.

    1. You must have the gag reflex of a starving vulture. How you managed to even picture that mentally without being physically repulsed from continuing is beyond me.

  23. The question of those with mental-health problems slipping through the NICS cracks is an issue allegedly being addressed in Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) new bill “Mental Health and Safe Communities Act” that is in the Senate hopper.

  24. regarding gov’t databases,think of the “no-fly” list;
    once you get on,it’s extremely difficult to get off it. Your name might be similar to a prohibited person,and you won’t be able to fly. you can be put on at the whim of a bureaucrat.

    For a psychological “no-buy list”,any anti-gun MD or psychologist “professional” could put you on it. and Poof,your RKBA is gone,without due process.

    Flying is not any right,but gun possession and carriage is.
    Rights should only be restricted by a court of law,following due process.

  25. The Schumers allude to that point, ominously warning that “under federal law, private citizens may sell weapons at gun shows, on the internet, or anywhere else they choose without performing background checks on the purchasers, allowing criminals to purchase guns with ease.”

    this is an outright lie. NO ONE can sell or buy interstate without a treansfer through an FFL and full NICS or equvalent background check. Private sales at gun shows can happen in some states (that number is rapidlhy shrinking) but criminals do not buy at gun shows. FBI states reveal that well under one percent of “crime guns” were bought at gun shows. The vast majority of crime guns stolen from law abiding and careful owners then funnelled into the underground black market. Some few were pruchased lawfully at gun retailers, often by people with known histories of disqualifying issues that somehow never got reported to FBI.

    1. The preservation of Due Process is CRITICAL, any new bill MUST give disqualified persons a clear and affordabel path to get their rights, and in most cases, physical possession of weapons they lawfully own restored quickly. The disqualifying actions MUST be plainly listed, so that anyone can look at the list and KNOW absolutely whether they are qualified or not, and how to proceed if they were notified of their disqualification. government must PROVE they are disqualified, not simply claim then force the disqualified/denied party to prove they ARE qualified. Basic Constitutional principals. And for the VA to declare a person disabled from gun ownership is NOT acceptable. THEY are neither judges nor juries. So a guy wants his benefits check deposited directly into his bank electrnically and they try to make him out to be mentally incompetent and put him on the FBI’s no guns list? Are they nuts? (this has happened.. New Mexico or Arizona, if memory serves).

      1. The points you raise here should already be central to any discussion on the issue of the so-called “gun show loophole”. The fact that it isn’t makes it obvious to me that the entire “conversation” is not about making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns but rather making it increasingly more difficult for ANYBODY to obtain a gun.

        One glaring point that I never see addressed in this “conversation” – since the purported goal is to stop “bad people” from getting control of a single gun – shouldn’t proof that the person in question already has possession of a gun be enough to nullify the background check? Providing that the horse has already left the stable usually leads the average, functioning human to forego bothering with the gate, doesn’t it?

        1. nullify the requirement for …

          1. Providing – – Proving

            Bleah…

  26. I think that we need to make the background check for purchase and carry of firearms be exactly the same procedure as done when voting. Both are rights covered in the Constitution and both are very important. So, lets be consistent.

  27. Does anyone else find it curious? The more isolated, the more heavily guarded by hired guns, the more negatively vocal certain people are about other honest people’s rights to legally own guns?
    It always seems a rather hypocritical and totally indefensible position to me.
    This is of particular importance to those of us who can’t afford to hire a gun, but instead must rely on ourselves.
    They ask: Why do you want to carry a gun?
    Answer: A cop is too heavy to carry.

    Dear Schmuck Schumer: you don’t like guns, don’t hide behind them, then tell me I must walk around naked.

  28. I can’t stand both Schumers. One is not funny and stupid, the other is the same but add “control freak” to his description. This has nothing to do with “gun control” and everything to do with collecting data on people. I say “THANK GOD FOR THE BLACK MARKET.” People should break the fucking law, try to find a way to buy your gun without any registration if possible, fuck them.

    1. Do I detect tongue-in-cheekiness there?

  29. As a lawyer with 38 years practicing law (including 25 years as a prosecutor) I offer the following opinions:
    1. Most rejections are the result of a law enforcement agency\and or a court failing to submit final dispositions to NCIC and/or III. When this is the case, in addition to the internet, send a certified copy of the final disposition to both sources.
    2. Failures to find a conviction/DD arrest are usually the fault of the arresting agency. In some cases, such as when a person is arrested then released without a filing of a complaint within 48 hours of arrest or no charges being filed, a rejection would probably be not be proper anyway.
    3. Mental disorders are usually not releasable because of HIPPA. The VA releases mental records to NCIC/III when patients are appointed guardians of the patient’s financial affairs. Note that the patient’s dangerousness is NOT considered, and such disclosures might wind up the subject of an expensive judgment against the VA. Most violent patients have arrest records with no disposition due to acquittal of not guilty due to insanity or dismissals due to inability to form criminal intent.
    I hope this information will be useful regarding records checks. The weaknesses in the system are mostly the result of the “constable blundering”. The solution cannot be corrected by additional legislation because they are the result of not complying with existing law. Viva la revolucion.

  30. I like the actress, but do not take advice from her on guns, Jane Fonda on communism or Ahnilt the Hun on free-markets or objectivist theory. None understand the theories they wish they grokked clearly enough to espouse. Actors generally are not the bright bulbs on the tree. Newscasters are actors too, yet would you go to one for advice on anything serious? Julie brown summed it up pretty succinctly in “‘Cause I’m a Blonde”. The safest I’ve ever felt was in frontier societies where everyone routinely had firearms. Peace Through Strength worked pretty well compared to Peace Through Prayer or Peace through Kristallnacht gun laws. All three have been tried.

  31. All you have to do is agree with the looters that guns are bad, and suggest the IRS, DHS, TSA, FBI and P.I.G.S. be disarmed first. Whichever tool tried to enlist you in a new Kristallnacht will instantly retreat and search for someone else to importune. It’s just a matter of getting priorities straight.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.