Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Unable to Ban Guns, Lawmakers Want to Weaponize the ATF Against Gun Dealers

Once again, lawmakers propose to use the regulatory state to punish people they don’t like.

What's a politician to do when it's clear that people will vigorously resist attempts to restrict their lives? Well, you could empower government officials to arbitrarily punish anybody who might help them exercise their freedom. That's the approach favored by three Democratic members of Congress, who appear to see the path to limiting private firearms ownership in harassing gun dealers and subjecting them to the whims of government officials.

Not that they're the only legislators to wield regulations as bludgeons, but it's always a lousy idea.

Ostensibly, the "Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act" (a name that maintains the congressional tradition of pompous bullshit) is aimed at "gun dealers who engage in illegal sales practices," which is to say it's supposed to make it more illegal to do illegal stuff. This isn't a new practice—Representatives Ted Deutch (D – Fla), Jim Langevin (D – R.I.), and Gwen Moore (D – Wis.) are hardly alone among lawmakers in thinking that what the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world (although we should take a few countries' official numbers with a grain of salt) needs is more people behind bars. And these three are also in good company in thinking that augmenting legal penalties with arbitrary harassment is the key to a better world.

As of today, the entry for the bill, formally H.R. 6075, is a placeholder lacking details. But, in a press release, Deutch's office says:

"Specifically, the Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act would:

  • Authorize increased ATF inspections of gun dealers to ensure compliance standards are met.
  • Strengthen penalties for falsifying gun sales records, including longer prison sentences for violators.
  • Add new types of civil sanctions for gun dealers who violate ATF regulations.
  • Permit ATF discretion in issuing gun licenses.
  • Allow ATF to require dealers to conduct physical inventories if more than ten crime guns are traced back to them."

Why are these new penalties and powers necessary? Because, claims Deutch, citing the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "just five percent of gun dealers supply 90 percent of guns used in crime," and "the combination of stringent standards and depleted budgets put ATF inspectors in an impossible situation."

So, apparently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives needs more power and discretion in using that power because it's been hobbled.

You know who doesn't think the ATF has been hobbled? The ATF.

"The [licensed gun dealers] who willfully violate the laws and regulations preventing ATF from accomplishing its mission to protect the public are few," the Bureau says on its website. The ATF emphasizes that, as the law requires, it acts "where willfulness is demonstrated" in violations of the law. The law requires willfulness so that enforcement doesn't become a game of whack-a-mole over inadvertent paperwork violations and regulatory missteps—something that gun owners and dealers claimed in the past was precisely the case. Before the 1986 legal change allowing gun licenses to be revoked only when regulations are "willfully" violated, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that "[a]pproximately 75% of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations."

So, in a country with sky-high incarceration rates that have yet to achieve the sort of legal submission that they seek, Representatives Deutch, Langevin, and Moore want to mandate "longer prison sentences." And an agency found by an earlier Congress to be harassing and entrapping gun dealers and owners is to be granted "discretion in granting gun licenses," and increased power to conduct inspections and "require physical inventories."

What could go wrong?

It's worth pointing out that the weaponization of the regulatory apparatus supported in this bill is exactly what many folks on their side of the aisle rightfully complain about when it's wielded against abortion providers (though Langevin is a pro-lifer). Louise Arbour, a former U.N. Commissioner for human rights, pointed to "government regulations and restrictions targeting abortion providers that infringe upon the physician-patient relationship and make the provision of services more onerous and expensive" in the introduction to a 2009 Center for Reproductive Rights report. She added, "these regulations have little or no medical justification and would be unheard of in any other healthcare context. Indeed, their purpose appears plain: to discourage the provision of reproductive health services."

A backdoor means of achieving restrictions and prohibitions? Huh.

Florida's "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in a style [ACLU lawyer Charlene Carres] likened to that of Hitler's Gestapo, had recently staged surprise inspections of clinics based on reports from pro-lifers," noted William Saletan in a 2011 Slate article. Saletan's article explained "Why good abortion providers refused to cooperate with Florida health inspectors"—a (justified, I believe) celebration of deliberate regulatory noncompliance that would have Deutch, Langevin, and Moore frothing at the mouth if exercised by gun dealers against politicized ATF intrusions.

But gun dealers would be just as thoroughly justified as abortion providers—or anybody else—in telling regulators and inspectors to go pound sand when government red tape is inflicted on them as a backdoor means of inflicting restrictions and bans that lawmakers find too difficult to pass through the normal law-making process.

And that's what Deutch, Langevin, and Moore should do too—they should go pound sand. Not that their bill is likely to see the light of day in a Congress controlled by the GOP. But the political wheels turn and they'll be back someday to wield the regulatory state as a weapon against things they don't like—just as they'll complain when that's done to activities of which they approve.

And we should be ready to keep telling them to pound sand.

Photo Credit: CHRIS MARTINEZ/LA OPINION/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Not that their bill is likely to see the light of day in a Congress controlled by the GOP. But the political wheels turn and they'll be back someday to wield the regulatory state as a weapon against things they don't like...

    Is Tuccille telling me I can't vote Democrat in the midterms?

  • KevinP||

    No Democrat wants to ban or confiscate guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    Survey: Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics, half want to ban all guns


    Quotes:
    When pro-gun control advocates tell you they don't want to take your guns, they actually want to take your guns.

    A YouGov survey released this week shows a significant number of self-identified Democratic respondents support the idea of total gun confiscation.

    82 percent of Democrats say they favor a ban on semi-automatics, which would include not just rifles like the one used in the Feb. 14 Parkland massacre, but also most handguns.

    That's a hell of a ban.

    On the question: "Do you favor or oppose … [banning] the sale of all handguns, except those that are issued to law enforcement officers."

    If you can believe it, Democratic respondents were split on this question. Forty-four percent said they would support such a ban, while a oh-so-slightly larger 46 percent said they would oppose it.

    That's not all! The survey also found that Democratic respondents were loosely split on whether the Second Amendment ought to be repealed. Thirty-nine said they'd oppose it, while 41 percent said otherwise. The broader population, on the other hand, overwhelmingly opposed the idea by 60 percent to 21 percent.

  • DajjaI||

    It's like how the DEA goes after pharmacists. Next step is to make it a public health crisis: "The desire to own a firearm despite harmful consequences." Call it 'gun disease'. Then issue press releases like "Gun Disease Ravages Chicago After Weeks of Enforcement". It's actually pretty easy.

  • sarcasmic||

    The CDC has been authorized to research "gun violence." Next step is to declare it to be an epidemic. After that the 2A becomes a health hazard.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They've been authorized to research "gun violence" all along. The Dickey amendment merely says, "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

    It was the CDC that decided the whole topic wasn't worth getting involved in if they couldn't spend the money on propaganda.

  • khm001||

    The CDC researched gun violence and found defensive gun use a critical component in the reduction of violent crime. They found citizens defensively used guns to prevent crime 2-3 MILLION times per year. This finding came out in 2013, a time when president Obama found very inconvenient. His media lackeys created a media blackout. Shocker, few know of that study.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Would the scientific name be Gungivitis? /groaner

  • FlameCCT||

    Gungrabitis would be the proper term as there is no gun giving involved.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>What could go wrong?

    Lawmakers.

  • BYODB||

    Ah, yes, the ATF. One of those agencies who had little problem blowing away a few wacko religious types down in Waco that weren't actually causing any harm. Sure, lets give them more power. What could go wrong?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    One of those agencies who had little problem blowing away a few wacko religious types down in Waco that weren't actually causing any harm.

    Well, to be fair, they didn't really blow them away, they burned the compound down with the religious wackos inside.

  • Tionico||

    yes, they did... they deployed TANKS, for goodness sake, against US Citizens who were harming no one and breaking no laws. (if they'd been doing, Koresh surely would have been indicted long before the toasting party) They also deployed INCENDIARY DEVICES knowing the buildngs were full of people, and made of flamable material.

    Yup. Janet Reno, now president of UC Berserkeley, and the BATF, were hot on that job.... NO ONE has yet to be brouht to justice.

    You excuse it by declaring thjey are "religious wackos". OK, fine... by SOME standard, nearly all of us are "religious wackos", you included. If they were not safe, not protected in the exercise of their rights, who will be?

    Not long after that incident, a man never suspected or convicted of a crime was targetted by.., BATF.... (THOSE guys, again??? Yup. BATF) and in the persuance of whatever they were persuing, the man's wife and infant son were murdered, as they sat quietly in the sunlight on their own front porch. BATF to the rescue.Of what, or whom, exactly, no one knows....

  • perlchpr||

    Hey now, as much as I hate the BATF, let's not let the FBI off the hook for their role in both of those situations. Vicky Weaver was murdered by a Feeb.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, Ruby Ridge was before Waco, not after. It was actually a big reason why Waco ended to terribly; The Davidians and the feds both knew that Weaver had gotten off because press photos had preserved evidence the feds set out to destroy.

    So the Davidians' one unalterable demand was that the evidence be documented before the feds got their hands on it. And the feds' one unalterable determination was that that NOT happen.

    And the feds got their way, by burning the place down, and then destroying such evidence as survived the fire. Texas Rangers testified that evidence they'd seen immediately after the fire vanished once the feds took custody of it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The looters murdered the Waco community in an effort to collect a tax on a gun part they imagined must surely have existed within the compound. This is no different, ethically, from the murder of physicians by cadaver-worshippers. Both the Republican and Democrat parties are conspiracies in furtherance of the initiation of deadly force in violation of individual rights. The dumbest thing anyone can do is sanction their depredations by failing to vote against their candidates for office. LP spoiler votes are the only thing restraining the brutes.

  • FlameCCT||

    LP spoiler votes never work when you choose a Progressive like Johnson.

  • Vladilyich||

    You're talking of gourmet cooking -- making Koresh Kabobs...

  • SDN||

    Waco --- What A Cook Out!

  • Dco777||

    They didn't burn them up, it was research that lead to the "Colonel's Extra Crispy Recipe", the FBI* swears!! (*Federal Baby Incinerators)

  • Dco777||

    They didn't burn them up, it was research that lead to the "Colonel's Extra Crispy Recipe", the FBI* swears!! (*Federal Baby Incinerators)

  • Tamfang||

    Now now, ATF only killed a few on the first day, before the FBI Hostage Rescue Team arrived to preserve disorder.

  • damikesc||

    "Why won't gun rights 'whackso' compromise on 'common-sense' gun control?"

    Well, because shit like THIS is what they deem "common sense" gun control.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Come and fucking take it. It's adorable how the left - living in their overpriced condos high above the urban rabble - truly believes that they will successfully disarm the populace.

    How fast it's gone from lip service towards the 2A to now outright saying "yes, we are taking your guns, and it's for your own good" is disturbing. The fact that they aren't taking what the response will be outside of their centrally-planned fiefdoms belies their ignorance, and hints that they have nothing outside of raw contempt for their adversary; that short-sightedness is never a winning approach.

  • damikesc||

    I still don't get why the same Left that says we cannot deport 20M or so illegals thinks that seizing 300M+ guns is remotely feasible.

  • sarcasmic||

    Considering that 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns, they could make a serious dent if they wanted to.

  • prolefeed||

    Considering that people who own guns are likely to take a dim view of having their guns counted, not sure how reliable that figure above is.

  • prolefeed||

    "Phil Cook, a Duke University firearms researcher and one of the authors of a prominent 1994 study of American gun ownership, praised the new research as "a very high-quality survey".

    Unlike the more frequent gun ownership polls from Pew or the General Social Survey, "it goes beyond asking whether there's a firearm in their household and asks how many firearms are in the household", he said. "Without knowing the answer to the second question, it's not possible to get a estimate of the total stock of firearms in the US." "

    So they called a bunch of people, some fraction of whom answered their intrusive questions, and some fraction of those gave accurate answers?

    Totally legit.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    About the same as the campus rape surveys.

  • a tandem||

    US gun ownership rate is likely from 58% to 63%. GSS method of face-to-face interviews on high privacy/confidentiality questions has been proven in the peer reviewed work be cause 50% to 60% undercount on high confidentiality privacy related issues, phone survey by high trusted polling firms (eg., gallup type) 30 to 40% garner undercounts.

    All modern training repeatedly emphasizes importance of telling no stranger or non household member there is a firearm in the home. Which is why the largest undercount is postulated to be in the younger cohorts

    Ask people if they are gay or smokers in face-to-face and over half who are, will say: "no." Ask over the phone and 30% to 40% of gay persons will say no. This has been shown in a dozen peer reviewed studies,
    GSS face to face recorded answers Year 2001 survey on proprtion of adult Americnas who had tried marijuana was 26%. The same year Gallup survey showed 34%. CDC 2001 estimate was over 50% of adults. NIH published estimates were up to 2/3 of Americans.

    Indirect or "veiled" questions are shown to be the most accurate reflection of number and trends on high confidentiality questions. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19508
    Here is what the social science says is the indirect question that likely reflects gun ownership numbers:
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/.....60x367.png

  • Ron||

    and the other 47% own the other 50% of guns that leaves 150M+ of armed people. Our military is only some 2 M

  • sarcasmic||

    Actually it's more like 20%.

    It's a lot of people, but it's not like all those guns are spread out evenly among the population. Gun nuts tend to have 10+ firearms. If they go after the gun nuts they could make a dent in the total number out there.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The typical "gun nut" isn't the one doing the killing.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    You're right, the typical "gun nut" isn't doing the killing,but he IS more likely to be an NRA member and support (and vote for)pro-gun candidates. Punishing the "typical gun nut" for his/her political activities is what this is all about. Anyone who tells you that gun control is not part of a culture war is either lying, or is just that ignorant.

  • Tionico||

    as things get crazier against owning guns, the "gun nuts" you allude to will be "victims" of increasing number of "tragic boating accidents" and their numbers of guns "available" for confiscation will diminish very rapidly almost to the vanishing point.

    No one knows how mamy "assault weapons" are still in the hands of New York, Massachussetts, connecticut, and California "gun nuts" or owners.... but ONE thing is absolutely certain.... there exist FAR more than those which were duly registered, inspected, or surrendered.

    Consider also what happened in Oz.. back when Government declared Mr. and Mrs, America, turn them ALL in" and we'll "compensate" you for their "value".
    Fifteen years on, they just had ANOTHER amnesty where previously undeclared firearms could be surrendered with no consequences. They got quite a few..... but most in Oz know there remain huge numbers of "non-existent" firearms scattered throughout that nation. It is also well known that large numbers of NEW military style and grade weapons are "finding" their way ashore in Oz.... and disappearing into the wide open spaces....... and those folk were and remain far more complacent and complliant than we Yanks ever were. THEY never took up arms to prevent government from disarming them. Who DID?

  • The original jack burton||

    If they "go after the gun nuts" a lot of people are going to be surprised at the new rules of engagement

  • damikesc||

    3% is north of 100M.

  • damikesc||

    Ugh, math hurts.

    3% is north of 9M.

    We cannot deport slightly more illegals. And they aren't armed.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Are you assuming that, if the feds started taking out owners of large arsenals, said owners wouldn't distribute the guns to some of their friends?

    And it's a pretty rare gun owner, in my experience, who only owns as many guns as the feds know about.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Considering that 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns, they could make a serious dent if they wanted to.

    About 25 Senators and a couple hundred Representatives need to be afraid of them and it will make a serious dent in legislative efforts.

  • FlameCCT||

    Does it hurt being that ignorant?
    Or just normal for a Progressive?

    Don't forget that 3% of the population is military; either active duty, retired, or veterans!

  • a tandem||

    Likely about 60% of Americans households have firearms. Using any lower number and surveying the small proportion of gun owners who have no problem with their gun ownership being public is going to be a survey over- representing of hunters who typically have a lot of guns since hunting typically requires this. A guy and his wife who skeet, clay and do up and lowland bid hunting are going to have eight shotguns. If they der hunt as well they will have ten guns.

    This is why younger cohorts who have firearms for home self defense, say a pistol and an AR are severely undercounted.

    We know for a fact that this number of gun owners has been growing since the cohorts least likely to support semi auto firearms bans are the youngest cohorts.
    Americans under 60 are less likely to support bans, and cohort least likely those support a ban is the 20-35 year old cohort.

  • khm001||

    Three percent represents 9 million Americans, which is over three TIMES the total number of military and police in the US. And a lot of that 9 million are police, active duty, as well as former police and veterans. The federal government would have a very hard time putting a dent in gun ownership.

  • SDN||

    Considering that figure is as full of sh!t as you are..... please use that to make the decision. We'll send flowers.

  • perlchpr||

    400M+

  • a tandem||

    Indeed BJS is 425 million

  • Tionico||

    numbers off a tad, but the point stands anyway. Somewhere near 12 Mn illegal foreign invaders seems to be the most accurate.

    About 110Mn Americans are gun owners, collectively owning well in excess of 400Mn firearms of all types.

    Sure, some percentage own an "arsenal" of a dozen or more..... some even into the hundreds, or thousands. Used to know chap that brought literally thousands of WW II military rifles back when there were none of the silly restrictions in place. Had about 6000 in his garage when I met him. Dont believe government had any record of any of them. No reason to. Almost all of them wored, those tht did not could easily be harvested for the bits to make nearly all of the rest functional. He liked them...... and used some of them. Some people collect Hummels, others collect Coke glsses or number plates from old motorcars, others collect bicycles or hand crank coffee mills. What's the difference?

  • Tionico||

    A few Americans only own one or two. Again, so what? I only owned three until about 1990. Then I sold one and owned only two. Collectively all the people I know who own guns probably own two or three thousand in sum. NONE of them would allow any government agent to take ANY of them. Most of the rest of them know where most of the remaining guns the rest own. Maybe they'd raid one place and pick up half a dozen and boast of the "large arsenal" they confiscated for no reason. But in most cases they'd miss the other forty or so owned by that same one. Others who know him will end up wiht the guns not seized. It will go like that until the high cost of confiscation will exceed the perceived benefit of seizing them. A certain increasing number of "seizors" will realise the high risk involved in their daily work of seizing is too great a reward for their ctivity in seizing. Some will be found in a position of no longer being able to seize. Eventually the confiscations will cease..... long before they've confiscated more than perhaps ten percent of the 400Mn plus out there.
    This is no threat... it is merely a fairly accurate surmisal of how that confiscation game is likely to play out.

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    "Most of the rest of them know where most of the remaining guns the rest own. Maybe they'd raid one place and pick up half a dozen and boast of the "large arsenal" they confiscated for no reason. But in most cases they'd miss the other forty or so owned by that same one. Others who know him will end up wiht the guns not seized."

    And are you assuming that the Feds will not offer reduced sentences in exchange for informing on other gun owners? Because that's how they actually conducted the War on Drugs.

  • SDN||

    Because ghetto trash and barrio bums are totes the same as NRA members.....

  • a tandem||

    gun ownership is about 190 million, not 110. You are talking about people who will tell a stranger they have a firearm when all modern firearm training emphasizes never to do so.

  • KevinP||

    No one wants to ban or confiscate guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    Dem. Congressman Eric Swalwell: Ban "assault weapons", buy them back, go after resisters

  • LifeStrategies||

    Socialists such as Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and ex-President Obama try to deny that their end goal is a complete gun ban but her words recorded on CBS in 1995 give the lie to all such denials:

    "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

    see: http://www.publiusforum.com/20.....ns-banned/

  • KevinP||

    No one wants to ban or confiscate guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    Democrat Candidate for Sheriff Daryl Fisher Suggests Killing People to Take Their Guns - and audience applauds

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Learn how to do HTML links. Long links work just fine on this site if formatted as a proper html hyperlink rather than expecting the system to convert a plain text URL to a link for you.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, not entirely; There are some fancy characters that are permitted in HTML links, but Reason's commenting system doesn't know how to interpret. But for 99% of links, a properly formatted hyperlink will work.

  • LifeStrategies||

    I only put dashes/hyphens in page names while avoiding punctuation marks and spaces. Works well. Mind you, I also check that each url does work by coping and pasting it first...

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Before the 1986 legal change allowing gun licenses to be revoked only when regulations are "willfully" violated, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that "[a]pproximately 75% of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations."

    Just want to bring back the good old days.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    That's why there should be a mens rea(intent) requirement to prosecute violations of the federal gun laws. And all federal laws. Any "compromise" gun law should include a mens rea requirement.. That is, if the anti-gunners are really interested in compromising. Which I doubt.

  • Ecoli||

    Fortunately, there is a men rea requirement for Clinton violations of federal law.

    Me and OpenBordersLibertarian are #stillwithher.

  • Don't look at me.||

    IT WAS HER TURN!

  • FlameCCT||

    Wrong again but why am I not surprised. But please continue to show your ignorance publicly for all to see.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    MALUM PROHIBITUM

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Congress can and should statutorily attach a mens rea requirement for prosecution of any violation of federal law.

  • Eidde||

    "Louise Arbour, a former U.N. Commissioner for human rights, pointed to "government regulations and restrictions targeting abortion providers" blah blah

    Pro-abortion "human rights" commisioners - reason #465 to kick the UN out of the USA.

  • Eidde||

    "Florida's "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in a style [ACLU lawyer Charlene Carres] likened to that of Hitler's Gestapo, had recently staged surprise inspections of clinics based on reports from pro-lifers,""

    The link seems to be about events in 1989 and 1990, but I skimmed so maybe I missed where they updated to more recently than a quarter of a century.

    But basically it seems that pro-lifers alerted the regulatory authorities to possible illegal activity at an abortion clinic (illegal even in the post-Roe sense, which is saying something), and the government inspectors came to check on these reports...wait for it...without warning the clinics in advance.

    No wonder the article reports divisions among pro-choicers as to whether to #resist these inspections.

    And if you want to Godwin the debate, which side is officially designating classes of human beings as lives unworthy of life?

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is not as if there were any recent cases of unethical and medically unsound practices by abortion clinics.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Readers mindful of how "All persons born" in 14A means that women are individuals even when pregnant, may marvel at the layers of self-deception that undergird demands for the violence of law against physicians and women. The Comstock Laws of 1872-3 are the ideal toward which Republican Lebensborn and Hitlerjugend fanatics still strive. That the Dems have as unhealthy a fascination for Krisallnacht gun laws is simply an added reason for voting against both looter parties.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    I'm told that when Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 he asserted that getting a Federal Firearms(dealer's) License would be no more difficult than getting a dog license. No, no the slope isn't slippery. And there's no slope. Right?

  • Tionico||

    Hmmm back then all I needed to do to get my dog's license to exist was to walk down to the city hall, plop two dollars on the counter, write a few things onto the blank page on the top of the pad (my name, too young to even find in anybrecoreds as I did not yet have my driving license) and pick up the numbered metal tag for his collar. No one even looked to see my name there, no ID either. I could have put Skeezix Mc Gillicuddy. Oh, and no one came round to "insoect" the yard or doghouse I had for him, or anything about what I wasa feeding him.

    I think getting an FFL these days is a tad more complicated, and just a tad more dear......

  • croaker||

    Back then a gun dealer's license was only a dollar.

  • Rockabilly||

    The commies will have to kill me to get my gun.

  • Ecoli||

    They killed north of 100 million in the 20th century. Your proposition is accepted.

  • Tionico||

    and how many BILLIONS did they fail to kill?
    Also, those 100Mn killed had been systematically disarmed well prior to their murder.

    Which is in large part WHY there is so much resistance to the idea of disarmement today.

    Ever seen the cattle waiting in the queue to enter the slaughterhouse door, and see what happens as they smell the death awaiting them? They know.....

  • The original jack burton||

    how many of those 100 million were armed?

  • Don't look at me.||

    You think you know how to kill? They know killing like nobody's business.

  • The original jack burton||

    and how do you know how well they "know killing like nobody's business'?

  • perlchpr||

    Well, the hundred million corpses they generated last century was an indicator.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I love how abortion clinics are to be above regulation because abortion is the only so-called medical procedure that has court protections.

  • croaker||

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Oklahoma City.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tucille's conspicuously excellent writing style is at odds with a couple of tactical problems. Granted, "pro-lifers" is a better descriptor than usual for bigots eager to have someone point guns at doctors and demand incarceration in the tradition of Herbert Hoover. Yet it is still a less accurate descriptor of than "prohibitionists" "christianofascists" or "girl bulliers." Which brings us to logical consistency. Republicans and Democrats are as mindful of consistency as the Hitler and Stalin regimes they struggle to emulate. The very notion was injected into the Politinomicon in a tu quoque reaction to Brandon and Rand's criticism of both looter parties. Far far better to drum up law-changing spoiler votes than to appeal to what reality control prevents looters from cherishing with any sincerity.

  • BILKER||

    i like the entire tone of your article with one complaint.please stop calling DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATIC. THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT democratic. THANK YOU.

    BTW F*CK DENIRO.

  • FlameCCT||

    Deniro is just another OLD WHITE MAN shilling for Progressives!

  • TxJack 112||

    These Democrats are all anti gun zealots. Although this bill will never see the light of day, it does demonstrate the true intent of the anti gun movement. They seek to use the power of government to deny people their basic Constitutional rights. When they are unable to pass laws to strip the right away, they then look to use regulations to deny the person the ability to exercise the right. The most insane part of this entire issue is the total denial that if we lose our 2nd amendment rights, then all the others are nothing more than privileges granted at the discretion of the government because we will have no way to prevent they from stripping or changing them all. They have already show their desire to strip away our 1st amendment rights for freedom of speech (defining it as "hate speech") and religion, so what would stop them from stripping away all the others. What would stop them from changing US law by eliminating the presumption of innocence when charged with a crime and replacing it with the European model where you are presumed to be guilty until you prove you are innocent?

  • LifeStrategies||

    Stop School Shootings by proposing the Stop School Shootings law

    After every mass shooting, the Democrats trot out the same old tired gun control laws, but 2A supporters can also propose a new gun law - one which WILL reduce the slaughter everywhere. The Stop School Shootings Law, see: www.DiscourageCriminals.net/stop-school-shootings

    Some of the many benefits are:

    1. Effective protection for your children. Ensure teachers are armed to defend them. If you trust your school teachers to educate your children, then they can also be trusted to protect your children.

    2. Discourage school shooters. Authorizing responsible teachers to be armed will give deranged individuals the message - just don't do it!

    3. Very low cost. Teachers defending your children won't cost very much. Your children's school will not need to pay expensive School Security Officers' salaries.

    4. More defensive gun uses. Since each and every defensive gun use either stops or mitigates a violent crime, even more defensive gun uses means even less violent crime. Studies show there are already several million DGUs a year, see www.DiscourageCriminals.net/dgu

    The Stop School Shootings law will stop all sorts of violent crime, so don't allow the fruitless desire for the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    We used to joke in the Michigan Militia that they were the BATF, not "ATF", because you couldn't drink them, smoke them, or fire them.

  • Steve 35B/11A Retd||

    If it is true that 3 firearms dealers account for 90% of illegal guns, it would be nice to have named them.

  • JohnnyS||

    What a bunch of gun industry propaganda. Lawmakers don't hate gun dealers, they just want to get tougher on the ones who break the law. And the gun industry of course doesn't want that because undocumented guns flying around everywhere equals better revenues for them. So they play up this Us + the Constitution vs Them horsesh*t. Doesn't belong on a website calling itself "Reason".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online