Memo To Gun Control Advocates: Be Careful What You Wish For

As this is written, the NRA is in deep trouble, massively split and facing an uncertain

future.  Gun control advocates are celebrating - but are their celebrations misplaced?

To be clear, I hope the NRA can be saved.   I fully support those who are working to reform and transform it.

That made clear, the more we learn, the more we see how little of our dues and donations were effectively used to protect the 2nd Amendment.  The current NRA is clearly a mirror image of the Washington DC political system: Bloated, ineffective and corrupt.

Just because the NRA ceases to exist, that doesn't mean that its' 5 million members are going to stop advocating for the 2nd Amendment.  They are not going to stop voting for pro-freedom candidates, give up their guns and take up knitting.  They are still going to advocate for gun rights and they are still going to give their money to the cause.

Other gun rights organizations are mean, lean and clearly more effective.  Many are not small either.  

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) has well over 2 million members, is much more uncompromising than the NRA.  It also has a significant record of stopping gun control legislation at both state and federal levels.  Indeed, the GOA is well positioned to take the place of the NRA and collect more former NRA members and supporters.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and its' non-profit arm the Second Amendment Foundation have nearly 3/4 of a million members.  These groups have been extremely successful for their size, especially in the area of litigation and the courts.  Given that the battle for gun rights is shifting to this arena, this group's work becomes even more important,  On the political front, this group has been willing to make deals with the other side when they believed it advanced the cause of gun rights.  They are in a good position to collect NRA members who might consider the GOA to be too radical.

In addition to these groups, there are many other "lean and mean" gun rights groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  In addition, there are too many state and regional groups to list.

The bottom line is simple: The gun rights groups positioned to replace the NRA are actually likely to be much more effective than the NRA.  If the NRA fails, it could be a good thing for gun rights in the long run.  If the NRA is reformed and continues in a more effective form, that would be a good thing for gun rights in the long run.  What would not be good for gun rights in the long run?  The NRA continuing as is - but that does not look like it will be likely to happen.

Virginia Governor Calls Lawmakers To Special Session To Push Laws That Would Not Have Stopped The Virginia Beach Murders

Northam doesn't have the best record on civil rights.
It's no surprise that he has no respect for the 2A.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, the same man who is perfectly OK with allowing babies to die, has called the Virginia legislature into special session to propose laws that would not have stopped the murders that prompted them.  His proposals are the typical laundry list that  gun rights opponents trot out after every mass shooting.  They are:

• Universal background checks;
• A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks;
• An extreme risk protective order;
• Reinstating the one-gun-a-month law;
• Child access prevention;
• Requiring people to report lost and stolen firearms; and
• Expanding local authority to regulate firearms, including in government buildings.

 None of these seven proposals would have done anything to stop the horrible mass murders in Virginia Beach.  Not one.

Universal background checks

The killer purchased his guns legally.  He even bought suppressor legally - which required a much more exhaustive 8-12 month federal background check, finger prints, local law enforcement notice amd more.  This proposal would not have stopped him.

A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks;

The murderer used a .45 Cal pistol.  Bump stocks or so called assault weapons were not used.  This would not have stopped the murders.

An extreme risk protective order;

OK, this one is a maybe - if they knew his plans, if they seized all his guns and if he didn't go to the black market and buy a gun after his were seized.  Or if he didn't build a bomb.  You get the idea.  If you want to stop a murder, you have to deal with THE WOULD BE MURDERER.  You have to get them off the street - and into jail or a mental institution.  So, why is it that so many localities want to only deal with the guns and leave dangerous people free to use other means to commit murder?

Reinstating the one-gun-a-month law;

Murders like this one are planned far ahead of time - and only require one gun.  This law would have done nothing to prevent this horrible crime.

Child access prevention;

Thanks to over 100 years of safety training - lead by the NRA - child firearms accidents are at an all time low.  This obviously would have done nothing to stop the murders.  In fact, it could be unconstitutional under the 2008 Heller SCOTUS decision.

Requiring people to report lost and stolen firearms

How in the world this would prevent mass shootings is a total mystery.   It would, as experience has shown, result in charges being filed against people whose guns were, for instance, stolen while they were on vacation - because they "should have known" that their guns had been stolen in a burglary they did not know had happened.  Yes, this has happened.

Expanding local authority to regulate firearms

This is a favorite of gun control advocates.  Their goal is to create a "patchwork quilt" of local gun laws that would be practically impossible for gun owners to follow.  The real goal of this and many of the completely useless regulations pushed by gun control advocates is to make owning a gun legally risky, thus discouraging it.  Someone planning a mass murder is not going to be stopped be any of these laws.  They will just break them.

Including in government buildings

This final proposal is the most absurd and dangerous of them all.   First, the location where the shooting took place was - you guessed it - a gun free zone.  None of the victims were permitted to be armed.  So the governor wants to make all government buildings just like the one where the shootings took place, because that will stop future murders.

It is also insane in that these people actually think that someone who has already decided to kill as many people as possible is going to walk up to a building with a "No guns Allowed" sign, say "Oh Darn!", turn around and leave!

This "No guns allowed" sign didn't stop a mass murderer.
He was stopped when when a Naval Officer fired a gun
he had illegally carried past the sign.

Of course, the reality is that mass murderers prefer unarmed victims.  That's why the single most common characteristic that unites these horrible murders is their location in places where the lawful carrying of firearms is banned.  Virginia's governor thinks that the solution is to create more such places.

Obviously, this man knows all of these facts.  He simply wants to push the gun control agenda.  He is not trying to prevent future mass murders.  He is trying to use this horrible crime to pass bills that are on Bloomberg's list - who likely contributed to his campaign.

He has much real concern for potential victim of mass shootings as he does for babies that happen to survive abortions. 

From Now On, The Gun Rights Battle Will Be Primarily In The Courts

Could It Be That The Loss Of The NRA Would Not Matter Much?

Increasingly, anti-2A efforts have been centered in the states.  Organizations owned and operated by Michael Bloomberg have focused on passing oppressive laws in blue and purple states.  One need only consider the draconian laws passed in New York, New Jersey, California and Washington state, as well as those passed in purple states such as Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico to see that the federal battle has been placed on the back burner (for now).  With basically unlimited funds, the other side can buy the votes of lawmakers or push initiatives buy purchasing all available media time and simply lying about what is in the measure.  This has now happened twice in Washington state.  There is no sign that he will stop anytime soon.

In contrast, exactly the opposite is happening in the red states (which is majority of states).  Constitutional carry is expanding and other pro-gun measures are common.  This could lead 2A activists in these states to be lulled into a false sense of security.  We need to understand the plan our opposition is pursuing.  They know that, even if they can get a majority in the House, and gain back the White House, the Senate is going to be nearly impossible for the foreseeable future.  So, they have shifted their efforts to the states.  Know this: They are already in your deep red state, and eventually they will push their horrible laws in your state.

This makes the NRA (the national organization) less critical.  Clearly, the state affiliates will have a role to play, as will the state affiliates of GOA and independent state organizations.  In some states, mostly purple state like Maine, we can stop their bills at the political level.  In some states, we can effectively nullify the law in many counties by getting sheriff to refuse to enforce what we (and they) believe is an unconstitutional law.

In addition to moving the battle to the states, our opponents are attempting to push the constitutional limits of firearms restrictions.  The know that outright bans are now of the table, but they are attempting to get as close as possible to an outright ban.  One need only look to California to see a huge number of varied restrictions, most of which definitely push constitutional limits.  There was little to no chance of stopping these laws politically.  After all, one of the worst passed as an initiative by a nearly two to one margin.  The only hope for California gun owners is the courts.

The best chance for stopping Bloomberg is the Supreme Court.  While it would be wonderful to get a sweeping decision, striking down most gun laws, this is unlikely.  Even if we get the best possible outcome from the current case headed to SCOTUS, we still are likely going to have to fight every gun control scheme the other side can come up with.  Sadly, there are still a lot of state and federal courts where the judges simply don't care what SCOTUS (or the Constitution) says - they will uphold gun control laws.  We have already seen lower courts ignore Heller and McDonald - so I suspect that they will continue to refuse to correctly apply any future rulings.  In short, we are going to have to fight a lot of legal battles, even if we get good rulings from the Supreme Court.

While the NRA has indeed brought legal action, other gun rights organizations, especially SAF, have more experience and are likely better at it.  These organizations are much less bloated and top heavy than the NRA.  Their leadership doesn't make millions a year.  Contributions to these groups are much more effective.  Could it be that the NRA will not be the nation's leading gun rights group going forward - and that the replacement will be even more effective?

Trump Names Generally Pro-Gun Rights ATF Director

The White House said President Trump would nominate Kenneth Charles "Chuck" Canterbury, currently president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, to head the BATFE. It's being vacated by Thomas Brandon, who is retiring.  Some research indicates that he could be a generally pro-2A director.

Here's what I found:

• Vocal 2A supporter: “I want no mistake to be made,” Canterbury testified. “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment." 
•  
• Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for 16 years.  Opposed NFL's no guns for off duty officers policies. 
• Believes that law enforcement should protect the 2A rights of law abiding citizens.
• Opposed making firearms trace data public.
• Supported the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act 
• Supports increased enforcement the laws prohibiting straw purchasing.
• Opposed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Those are the facts here are my thoughts:

In regards to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, in my opinion, this bill was never intended to pass.  It was a case of massive overreach that was doomed from the start.  At the time, we likely could have gotten the bill through the Senate If it had contained minimum training and background checks standards.  The lack of these is exactly why the Fraternal Order of Police, which Canterbury heads, opposed the bill.  It also gave Democratic Senators in pro-gun, pro-carry states cover to oppose the bill.  Sure, it gave House members the ability to say they voted for it, but that is all.  Had we accepted reality and including a training and background check standards, we would have reciprocity today.

In regards to everything else, he is light years better than any other BATFE director in the recent past, perhaps ever.

What are your thoughts?

Why Wayne LaPierre Needs To Resign Or Explain Why He Won't Do So

Lt Col Allen West and others have called
for LaPierre's resignation

I really wish that there were not real, significant problems at the NRA.  Unfortunately, there are VERY real problems.  Demanding that they be addressed is not anti-NRA. - it is what we need to do to save the NRA.  There are at least six good reasons for us, the membership, to expect LaPierre to resign.  No one is saying that Wayne LaPierre has not done many great things in defense of the 2nd Amendment.  He has.  However, as a leader, he has unquestionably failed in at least five ways:

1) Ackerman MacQueen PR firm (AckMac) - no matter whom you believe, it is clear that huge problems exist.  After all, the NRA is suing them.  These problems happened on LaPierre's watch.  They have been going on for years (AckMac has been the NRA public relations firm since 1981).  This alone should have caused him to do the right thing and resign.

2) Running expenses through AckMac to increase his compensation package.  It appears that LaPierre ran $200k+ of clothing expenses through AckMac, who then billed the NRA.  He did this while making a salary well into six figures.  There are also tax questions here.  His job does not qualify him to receive clothing tax free.  If he did not pay taxes on the value of the clothing, AckMac, the NRA and LaPierre could all be charged with tax evasion.

3) La Pierre's huge salary, and salary increases, while the NRA work force was taking compensation cuts and NRA income is down.  If the NRA was thriving, perhaps LaPierre's one million dollar plus compensation package would be justified.  However, it is inexcusable for him to be making this much money while the NRA's employees have lost their retirement plans and NRA income is down.  A real leader -and I have worked under someone who did this  - would slash their own salary and do everything they could to help those working under him, who could ill afford pay cuts.

4) Carry Guard - Stabbing firearms instructors in the back.  The first huge issue with the Carry Guard program is that the NRA decided to go into the firearms training business in competition with existing firearms instructors who were, prior to this, some of the NRA's greatest promoters.  This move, clearly approved by LaPierre, was both underhanded and shortsighted.  Now these instructors are likely to promote the GOA or SAF, or worse yet, no 2A organization at all.

5) Carry Guard - an inferior insurance product.  The NRA came up with a demonstrably inferior insurance plan, on that requires you to pay all your expenses out of pocket and then get reimbursed if and when you are found not guilty.  In contrast, CCW Safe sells plans that cover all of your expenses, including all legal fees and expenses, bail bonds, and one million in liability coverage - all of which require zero out of pocket.  Yet the NRA leadership prostituted the NRA's good name buy tell members and others that the coverage was "the best available", when it clearly was not.

6) Carry Guard - Insurance license disaster.  Sadly, that's not the only problem with Carry Guard.  The NRA was literally so incompetent that they failed to obtain the proper licenses to sell insurance in several anti-gun states.  This resulted in the NRA suing the insurance underwriter in an effort to blame them.  It also resulted in New York (and perhaps other states) opening investigations into the NRA.  This alone is more than enough for the membership to expect LaPierre to resign.

So, there you have it.  Six reasons why we should expect LaPierre to resign.  Too bad he does not appear to have the integrity to do so - or to publicly explain why he should not.  He needs to do one or the other.  The future of the organization depends on it.

The Democratic Plan To End Gun Rights In America

Just in case you had any doubts about the commitment of the Democratic party to ending gun rights in the US - turning gun ownership into privilege - consider today's news.  In fact, Kamala Harris made the two statements below in the same day, in the same exchange with reporters.  Funny how every news outlet except Fox was careful not to report them in the same article:




Step one: Flip the conservative majority on the Supreme Court by expanding its' size with liberal members who do not care what the constitution says

They would likely first eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, then they would only need a simple majority and the presidency to expand SCOTUS. 

From Bloomberg:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said Wednesday she’s open to expanding the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing Republicans of creating a “crisis of confidence” in the nation’s highest court.'

“I am interesting in having that conversation," the California senator said in Nashua, New Hampshire, in response to a question about whether she favors adding as many as four seats to the court. "I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Step Two: Create a case that would enable SCOTUS to reverse Heller/McDonald

From Politico:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Harris — a former career prosecutor who appears intent on owning the gun issue in the crowded primary — said if Congress fails to pass stricter gun laws in her first 100 days as president, she would act on her own. She floated executive orders requiring near-universal background checks on gun sales, closing the so-called "boyfriend loophole," reversing the Trump administration's move to allow fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants to buy guns, and repealing a law that prevents victims from holding gun-makers and firearms dealers liable for their losses.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Result: A reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that eliminates any personal right to keep and bear arms.

The bottom line: If Democrats ever gain both houses and the White House, the 2nd Amendment is effectively gone and any and all gun laws and bans would be permissible.

It's a simple plan that is completely feasible.  It would also tear the nation apart.  God help us if it succeeds.

How Much Would A "Buy Back" Of Semi-Auto Rifles Cost?

The cost of confiscating semi-auto rifles would
be massive - could the money be better spent?

Cost likely would exceed 2/3 of the US DOJ's yearly budget

The first thing we must recognize is that if the government wants to seize these firearms, they would have to pay for them.  So, setting aside the huge constitutional issues what would such a program cost?

The first step in estimating the cost is estimating the number of such weapons.  The AR15 has been the most popular firearm in the US for a long time.  Then there are AK47s, Ruger Mini-14s and other guns such as the M1 Carbine.  Gun control advocates like to downplay the number of guns involved - while constantly expanding  the kinds of firearms defined as an "assault weapons".  No one knows how many semi-auto rifles exist that take detachable magazines are out there - but they have been made for over 100 years.  A realistic estimate would be 30-40 million, but it could be even more.

So, if compliance is high, what would such a program cost?  Well, if the average value of these firearms is $600.00 (a conservative estimate), then the math looks like this:

30,000,000 x $600.00 = $18,000,000,000.00

Yep, a realistic estimate of the buy back cost of these firearms is 18 Billion Dollars.  Add on to this the cost of administering the program, running ads to inform the public, disposing of the firearms, defending the law in court and who knows what else - and the cost could easily be over 20 billion dollars. 

For perspective, the entire budget for the U.S. Department of Justice (FBI, US Marshals, ATF, prosecutors, etc.)  is about $31 billion.  Tiny New Zealand's program may cost them 200 million.  After doing my own estimate, I discovered that other researchers have arrived at a similar number (20 billion).  All of this to eliminate a category of firearm that is involved in less murders than knives, clubs and bare hands/feet INDIVIDUALLY.

This raises a logical question: Would this money be better spent on other efforts?  Imagine what we could do with 18 billion dollars.  We could likely harden every school in the country or massively expand mental health services or provide more school resource officers or train school staff to protect their students - or some combination of the above.  

Even if you are a gun control advocate, you should be able to see better ways to spend that much money.  We could  fix our broken background check database so that it actually contains everyone who legally cannot buy or own a firearm.  We could prosecute more people who buy guns illegally.  We could increase funding for the ATF and implement a "Project Exile" like program nationwide.  This program imbeds ATF agents in local police agencies so they can bring federal charges against criminals caught with guns.  Since federal time is usually served far from home, this is a major deterrent that has been proven to greatly reduce the number of criminals carrying guns.  This would save far more lives than buying back millions of semi-auto rifles.

Banning semi-auto rifles is simply not the best way to spend 20 billion dollars if you want to save lives.  There are many other efforts that would be much more effective.