“Gun control-related ballot measures in four states are expected to pass on Tuesday, opinion polls show,” reuters.com reports. And whom do we blame if all these gun control initiatives pass, further degrading Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? The voters, of course! And an education system that failed to educate them about the Second Amendment (and the history of civilian disarmament). And the media, for propagating anti-gun rights propaganda. And somebody else . . .
Michael Bloomberg. The anti-ballistic billionaire bully boy and former mayor of New York City has poured millions into anti-gun rights ballot initiatives and candidates. Helpfully enough, Bloomberg’s personal anti-gun rights media outlet, The Trace, has traced the boss’s spending on civilian disarmament. And the bucks levied by Bloomberg’s well-heeled supporters, Mark Kelley’s Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS) and the NRA. Here’s the balance sheet:
California Proposition 63 would prohibit the possession of large capacity magazines and require background checks for ammunition purchases, among other proposed reforms. The California Democratic Party spent $1.1 million on its behalf; Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom chipped in $727,564 from his war chest. Many wealthy individuals also contributed six-figure sums, including Napster founder Sean Parker ($400,000). The NRA spent only $95,000 in opposition to Prop 63, with three state gun groups adding a total of $133,000 against it.
Maine Question 3 would require background checks for all gun sales and transfers (with exceptions for family members, hunting, or emergency self-defense). The funders on the gun violence prevention side include Everytown, which has spent $5.6 million (including money from its Maine affiliate), and ARS, which has spent $454,459. The NRA has dominated spending on the opposing side, with $949,359.
Nevada Question 1 would require all gun sales to go through a licensed gun dealer who would conduct a background check. Everytown has spent $13.7 in support of the proposal; one of its founders, Michael Bloomberg, donated another $3.5 million. Businessmen Sean Parker, Nick Hanauer, and Josh Bekenstein have each spent at least $250,000 in support of the measure. The NRA spent $6.5 million against it.
Washington’s Initiative 1491 authorizes courts to issue extreme risk protection orders to temporarily remove guns from individuals who threaten to harm themselves or others. Spending in support of the initiative has come largely from three individuals: Hanauer ($790,000), Steve Ballmer ($500,000), and Paul Allen ($250,000). Everytown spent $550,0000; ARS spent $250,000. There is of yet no record of NRA spending in opposition.
Can gun control be bought? Watch this space.
It’s nice when they map out the next Civil War for ya. Red State / Blue State Map out in T-minus ohh ’bout 13 hours.
Mmm, nice bit of backsliding there lads, coming to a red state turning blue near you, overrun by Mexicans, Syrians and Somalis.
More useless laws that will have no effect on criminals, but will make life more difficult and dangerous for honest citizens. Meanwhile, we’re about to elect one of the greatest criminals of modern times to the presidency, where she will steal from the middle class in order to enrich herself and America’s Money Changers and increase the population of the Great Unwashed to unbelievable levels. The power elite must have people to control. The end of our great nation is getting nearer.
You are only an honest citizen if the government says you are an honest citizen. That’s why the Second Amendment says: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Otherwise all the government has to do is declare that you are not an honest, trustworthy citizen and that people like you cannot be trusted with firearms. POOF! No guns for you!
Please get this right – shall not be infringed means exactly SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There is no qualifier anywhere in the Second Amendment.
WilliamB,
Well, did you get out and vote for Trump to ensure that Hillary does not win the election?
In case you live in a blue state and want to claim that your vote does not count:
(1) How do you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that 50.00001% or more of voters in your state will vote for Hillary? If everyone who despises Hillary votes for Trump, your nominally blue state might actually have enough votes for Trump to win your state.
(2) Even if Hillary carries your state, reducing her popular vote margin reduces the strength of any claims that she has an “overwhelming mandate from the people” and weakens her confidence going forward.
Those are two incredibly compelling reasons to vote and vote for Trump.
+1 Even the Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) won the governorship of this nut job state and Obama was president for two terms ….. so anything is possible.
RE map/chart – there is no requirement in Iowa that private seller perform a background check.
Frequently nanny sellers stipulate to see the Sheriff issued “permit to purchase” or Concealed Carry Permit. The correct response to such would be to meet/inspect, show the cash, and then refuse to comply with a voluntary submission to extra-constitutional BS.
“Can gun control be bought?”
Can *any* legislation be bought?
I think you know the answer to that one…
It should be a misdemeanor to donate to any political campaign or ballot measure that you are not qualified to actually vote for. It should be a felony to accept any such donations.
Corporations can’t vote, yet they have unlimited rights to campaign spending, it’s free speech, don’t you know…
Individuals can vote, but their rights to campaign spending are strictly limited, because free speech doesn’t apply to them…
Your understanding of Citizens United and the cases following it, along with your understanding of CFR § 114.2 et sec, is highly limited.
Citizens United protects corporations right to free speech. Their donations are limited to the same as other citizens, right? $2,700 per candidate, $5,000 for a PAC right. Are they getting around this somehow?
If the Attorney General of the United States and Director of the FBI can be bought, then yes; any legislation can be bought.
Well, tickle me silly ! Anti-fredom politicians, and “marching morons” within the General population—same type of folks who bought about the roaring 20’s alcohol prohibition…Still working on breaking down our US Constitutional-Bill of Rights…Doesn’t surprise me…While we are on our way to Authoritarian goose-stepping Globalism…Better stop it now…Or else all will be lost in America….
Don’t just post here…Go out and vote accordingly!
They HAVE all that shite in Illinois-and NOTHING. Just a pain in the azz. ‘Cause criminals don’t care. Yeah I voted but it hardly matters in Cook co.,ILL…
FormerWaterWalker,
“Yeah I voted but it hardly matters in Cook co.,ILL…”
Yes, it does matter. See my comment above. Even if Hillary wins your state, the less popular vote she has, the less she can claim a “popular mandate” to enacts laws that interfere with our unalienable rights.
Bullshit. If Johnson and Green win enough votes to make her winning total 43% of the vote, as with her husband and Ross Perot, she will claim a landslide mandate to pass all manner of crap never even mentioned in the campaign, *JUST LIKE HER HUSBAND DID*!!!
Thanks Larry. Anyone familiar with Cook County “gets it”. Gerrymandering is the operative word. And yeah a one vote win is plenty for the Hildebeast. Slick Willy NEVER got 50%…
I take it ‘license to purchase’ states are considered ‘private transaction background check’ states?
So the NRA gets outspent ten-to-one, but still gets to be labeled “the powerful gun lobby.”
You got that right. As far as lobby groups, the NRA isn’t even on the radar for the most influential.
The NRA is powerful because it can influence elections with votes, not for it’s spending.
Guessing they wouldn’t get so outspent if half the gun owners in this country would join. 5 million members just isn’t enough with 100 million gun owners. But those who don’t take any action will blame those who at least try.
Couldn’t agree more. Where in blazes are those other millions of gun owners taking a free ride on the back of those of us who faithfully (and happily) pay our dues to NRA? If all gun owners were members of the Association, there would be no Michael Bloomberg and no “false skirt” front organizations like Everytown funded by this limo liberal billionaire. So, if you’re sitting on the sidelines, don’t bother complaining when Mikey and his “girls” come to town to take your guns.
Of course these bills will pass. This is America!
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken
Although I take a backseat to nobody in my dislike of Connecticut’s gun laws, I would note that even though all sales require a background check, unlike most other places, because the CT State government runs its own copycat/mirror service if NICS, in CT private citizens can perform a background check without involving an FFL. Which is a slightly ameliorating factor. Just.
There’s a similar system in MA, although most people don’t know about it.
A private seller can obtain a verification from MA that the buyer’s license to carry (necessary for any gun ownership or purchase) is valid. The state will confirm the buyer’s LTC in writing to the seller if so requested.
Since the state is supposed to background-check all LTC holders regularly (it’s supposed to be daily), this is the equivalent of the seller running a background check.
The Brady system was originally set up to be accessible by private sellers, but that feature was eliminated. Why? No Form 4473, that’s why.
MA does not require background checks by non-FFLs. It does require that private transfers be entered into the state database.
RtB, you’re correct. However, the state does offer a service whereby a private buyer can present a written state certificate to the seller attesting that the buyer has a valid, unrevoked LTC.
Not many people are aware of this system or use it. Were I to sell a firearm to a private buyer in MA, I would ask him to present a certificate to me. He can get one instantly on-line and it’s free. The transfer has to be reported anyway, so it’s no skin off the buyer’s nose and keeps us both out of trouble.
Why in this world would *anyone* comply with such shit? Really! If I sell a gun to you without paying any attention to such stupidity, how the hell would anyone know, and if they know, how would they prove it, and if they can prove it, how can they demonstrate that they personally explained the requirements to me, since otherwise I could not have had any intent to break the law, so under the Hillary ruling I cannot be prosecuted. If you bow down and kiss their feet, when there is no reason to, the fault in our futures lies with you!
“Why in this world would *anyone* comply with such shit?”
To CYA. For example, if you sold a gun to someone who thereafter used it for illegal purposes, or who was a prohibited person, the gun may be traced back to you. That’s when the fun begins.
You’re sure that the gun can’t be traced? Well, I’m sure that the miscreant will drop a dime on you in a heartbeat.
Frogs on slow boil and we aren’t refreshing the tree of liberty
In Washington, 1491 has lots of slick professional ads. All people claiming they tried to stop someone from getting a gun and were told nothing could be done. Have no seen and ads against the initiative.
The measure has no due process. Someone can make the claim, a judge signs off and the first notice a gun owner gets is when the police arrive in an “armed and dangerous mode.” The is no consequence for a false report.
Meanwhile, two years after I-594 passed, the universal background chèck, there has finainlly been an arrest. Given, there’s no gun to be found.
I wouldn’t assume CA is a lock for 63. I was looking at the ballot and the way they described the financial consequences of the law made it sound very ominous. Also there are many other props on the ballot that are asking for money any many of them are for “feel good” causes so in a way, 63 is competing with many other props.
Don’t you love those funding numbers? Puts the lie to the “deep pockets of the gun lobby” canard, doesn’t it.
The graphic shows Nebraska requiring a background check to transfer a handgun. This is an oversimplification. No background check is required for transfers within immediate family, rentals as long as the renter remains on the premises, and loans as long as the borrower remains in view of the owner. The “background check” for other transfers consists of either a handgun purchase permit or a concealed carry permit. The purchase permit is issued by the county sheriff, is good for three years, is processed while you wait and costs $5. The concealed carry permit substitutes for a NICS check during purchase from an FFL. To keep out criminals, it’s common for gun clubs to require a permit as a condition of membership.
If you don’t vote, don’t complain about the result!
And don’t use the excuse that the incumbent (usually Democrat) has such a lead that it will make no difference. If there are enough votes against them they will realize they can’t take the electorate for granted.
If you vote, don’t complain about the result. There, fixed it for you!
Here in NV all of the local media is supporting Question 1 as expected, since most journalism graduates are pretty left leaning. It’s great to read their “we’re backing question 1 because” even though they’ve written multiple pieces about effectively every sheriff in the state being against it. Apparently some editor at a newspaper who’s never shot a gun knows more about crime prevention than the local police who make a living at it.
My guess is it’s going to pass here in NV, but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised. Sad to see Maine potentially falling as well, although with Olympia Snowe, that’s not necessarily unexpected. Even Democrat Harry Reid here in Nevada pretends to support the 2A, creating a $61 million dollar gun range near Vegas with his endorsement.
None of these ‘expected to pass’ laws should surprise anyone. Seattle already has the ammo restrictions (although it is being challenged by – among others – the NRA). WA also has – since last year’s election – the transfer restriction. There’s a lot of ‘big money’ in this state and of course they will use it to purchase influence. Yes, I did vote against the one who intends to re-write the Constitution and amendments. I wonder how the journalists who support her will feel once she starts to modify the first amendment?
Background check to buy ammo will cause an INSTANT stop to all violence in the state, *jokes*, marijuana will become legal in order to allow us to survive 4 to 8 years of Hoary Rotten Chimpanzee.
2017 is gonna be just chock full of Suck, so ready to go.
Well I’ve done all I can. I voted Trump and no on 63. It’s all that I can do.
I am happy as hell that everyone here, who said at 9am on November 8th, Hillary won, was shown to be wrong. I voted Trump, I potentially alienated some so-called friends and I’m totally fine with that. Trump has everything he needs to keep some of his promises – let’s be reasonable, no politician has ever kept all their promises – so let’s get out there and Make America Great(er) Again!
Comments are closed.