We’ve been hearing about Hillary Clinton’s proposals for new laws in the wake of the school shooting in Oregon, but once again it looks like the mad rush to “do something” about guns has generated the same old proposals that we keep hearing time and again. The common refrain from gun control activists: “why do you keep fighting these common sense proposals?” There’s a damn good reason, namely that the new laws would do exactly nothing to stop the “gun violence epidemic” that the Democrats are using as cover for their proposals. Here’s why.
The following comes from the Huffington Post’s coverage of Hillary’s proposals.
At the top of the list is a pledge to take administrative action if Congress fails to tighten the so-called gun show and Internet sales loopholes. Under current law, licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks and certify that potential buyers are not prohibited from owning guns. But unlicensed vendors, including some individual sellers at gun shows, don’t have to go through these steps.
Clinton plans to call for lawmakers to address the issue. But if they don’t, she will require that anyone “attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed ‘in the business of selling firearms,’” which would “ensure that high-volume gun sellers are covered by the same common sense rules that apply to gun stores — including requiring background checks on gun sales.” Asked what would constitute “a significant number of guns,” a Clinton aide responded, “There are a number of studies being conducted currently regarding illegal gun sales that could inform an eventual rule making.” . . .
First things first, this is already illegal.
The law as it currently stands prohibits anyone from being “in the business” of selling firearms without a license from the ATF. Individuals are permitted to sell off their collection in “private party” transactions, but if someone were truly engaged in buying and selling mass quantities of guns as Hillary is suggesting that would be a blatant violation of existing law. If she’s truly concerned about that scenario she can simply direct the ATF to investigate and arrest these individuals under the existing law, there’s no need to make it more difficult for my friend to sell me his old hunting rifle.
There’s another problem as well. The Federal government can only prohibit sales of items that cross state lines. The sale of firearms within a single state is under the purview of the individual states themselves. That’s the reason why states like Oregon and Colorado can prohibit private sales altogether while others like Texas can allow the practice. A better use of her time might be convincing the residents of those states to enact similar laws instead of trying to force New York style gun control down the throats of Americans who don’t want it.
Let’s assume for a second that Hillary didn’t just want to target “high-volume” sales and actually went for the brass ring — universal background checks, registration, the whole lot. The problem is that we’ve already got policies like that in place in Chicago, and criminals are having no issues whatsoever getting their hands on illegal guns. Purchasing guns with the intent to sell them is already a felony but Chicago criminals do it anyway and somehow are never prosecuted. Selling guns across state lines is a felony but again Chicago criminals don’t care. Buying a firearm without an Illinois FOID card is another huge honkin’ felony that criminals somehow don’t give a toss about. In fact a recent study showed that nearly half of all guns used in crimes in the city of Chicago were obtained from friends (and fellow gang members) or relatives, and only 9 firearms out of 135 investigated were purchased (either on the “black market” or from a gun store). All of those transactions would have required a background check under Illinois state law, but none of that happened.
Either way, the point still stands: this is yet another proposal that would duplicate existing law. Prohibiting “high-volume” private sales is already on the books, all that needs to be done to stop it from happening is to tell the ATF to get off their ass and investigate. Similarly the state and federal authorities already have the power and authority to stop the flow of guns into Chicago, but instead of actually doing some work and cracking down on illegal guns they prefer to blame other states for their own problems. Apparently both Hillary and her Chicago buddies believe that if we just pass a brand new law this already illegal practice would stop. Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?
Pivoting off that first talking point (of the nonexistent and already illegal “high-volume” private sale individuals) she goes right into demanding that the “Charleston loophole” be closed.
Clinton’s second proposal would close a gap in the current background check process that “allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check is not complete within three days.” The so-called “Charleston Loophole” has been pinpointed as a contributing factor in the mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in the South Carolina city in June, though some have also argued that the shooter would have been stopped from obtaining a gun had there simply been better communication between state and federal agencies . . .
The reason why that three day timeout was added was specifically to keep the United States government from enacting a de facto ban on firearms. If all of the hundreds of thousands of firearms purchases every month need a background check, then the government can very easily use the FBI NICS system to effectively turn off the tap. Reducing the staffing at the NICS call center and restricting the throughput of that organization could mean that a background check could go from taking only a few minutes to process to a year-long waiting period. We’ve seen the ATF’s NFA branch operating in exactly that mode over the last few years, with a severely understaffed office leading to a six month waiting period for a simple background check and registration.
The three day timeout wasn’t intended to permit criminals to get their hands on guns — it was intended to incentivize the government to actually do their job. If Hillary Clinton was actually interested in stopping criminals from getting their hands on firearms her response should have been to staff up the NICS office and give them the ability to process background checks faster so they could catch criminals in a timely manner, not to remove the only check on the laziness of the federal government that law abiding citizens have.
Next on the list is domestic abuse.
Clinton will also call for legislation that prohibits domestic abusers from buying and possessing firearms. Such a bill has already been introduced in the Senate, where it has had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Similar legislation has been pushed in state legislatures as well, where the National Rifle Association has notably backed down from the fight. According to a report from the Center for American Progress, nearly 12,000 convicted stalkers can legally purchase firearms in the U.S.
I’ve got a boss at my day job who was arrested for domestic abuse. It doesn’t matter that he was in a completely different state at the time, his wife’s divorce lawyer told her that she would get more money if she had him arrested and that’s what she did. There was no conviction (because the judge immediately threw the case out when he heard the facts) but he still has an arrest on his record. Under laws similar to the one Hillary Clinton is proposing, the mere fact that he was arrested would permanently bar him from possessing a firearm without any possible recourse to get that right restored.
Since the shooting in Oregon I’ve had more than a few conversations with people who just want to “do something” about the “gun violence issue” and things like this come up again and again. The constant argument is that “these laws weren’t passed because the evil NRA got in the way and blocked it so the gun lobby could continue making money,” but they never take more than a cursory glance through the legislation to see what’s actually inside. The reason that so many people oppose this legislation isn’t because they want to sell guns to domestic abusers but instead because the system makes it far too easy to be permanently stripped of your rights without any due process.
Moving beyond the terrible provisions in such legislation, the fact remains that in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases this legislation wouldn’t make a single lick of difference. 60% of “gun violence” deaths in the United States are suicides, and prohibiting those convicted of domestic violence from buying a firearm would have a negligible impact on that number. Of the remaining murders, roughly 80% are gang related [citation]. Gang violence is the root cause of the “gun violence” numbers in the United States, not domestic violence. Focusing on domestic violence is like putting a Band-Aid on someone whose had their legs chopped off. Sure it might help a little bit, but the good it does will be far outweighed by the gang violence problem that it completely ignores.
Hillary doesn’t care. She’d rather continue to watch Chicago burn than make even the faintest suggestion that the gang culture in her voting base is more responsible for the bloodshed in America than the NRA. With her final point she makes it very clear what her goal is.
Finally, Clinton will call for a repeal of the legal immunity that gun manufacturers and dealers currently enjoy under a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This could be the most politically provocative of the four proposals. Not only is the immunity a prized possession of the NRA, but it is something that Sanders voted for while a member of the House of Representatives. Clinton, who was a senator representing New York at the time, voted against it.
Car accidents are responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths every year than firearms. What Hillary Clinton is suggesting is no different from suing car companies for every single motor vehicle death in the United States regardless of the cause. Your friend fell asleep at the wheel and flipped his car? Sue GM! Your brother drove drunk and jumped his car off a bridge? Obviously that’s Ford’s fault! Someone decides to steer their car into a proverbial bus full of nuns and kills them all? Chevrolet is the real monster here, sue them!
Should we sue alcohol companies for every drunk driving death? Should we sue Con Edison for every electrocution? Should we sue the water company for every drowning death? We don’t do that, because as rational people we understand that inanimate objects are not responsible for the actions of their owners. Firearms are not talismans of evil that force their owners to commit murder, they’re tools just like anything else that require a human to function for good or evil.
There’s only one reason why Hillary Clinton would want firearms companies to be liable for every death in the United States, and that’s to force them to go out of business. There’s no doubt that any rational judge would throw out any such lawsuit that comes across their desk, but the legal fees involved in just that much interaction with the court would be enough to drive the gun companies out of the civilian market for good. This exact situation is the reason why the smaller airplane manufacturers went out of business and why airplanes are so expensive these days. It’s not that they are particularly expensive to produce, but the cost of defending the company against liability lawsuits from every idiot who crashes their plane is driving the cost out of the ability for the average American to afford. Hillary wants to do the same thing with firearms.
What’s most disturbing about these proposals is that they would have done absolutely nothing to stop the mass shootings that she uses to advance her agenda. Hillary parades around the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, but her proposal to target private sales of firearms would not have stopped the shooter — he stole the firearms from his mother. She uses the Oregon school shooting as the rationale for her domestic violence background check proposal, but that attacker had no criminal history whatsoever. The only thing that comes close is the “Charleston loophole” she wants to close — the 3 day timeout for gun sales — but rather than forcing the government to investigate people more efficiently her sole response is to allow the government to be as inefficient as it wants without any oversight and allow a backlog of gun sales to pile up. A right delayed is a right denied, but Hillary doesn’t seem to agree that anyone has a right to own a gun despite her determination to take an oath to preserve, uphold, and defend a document which clearly states that an individual right to own a firearm is indeed a fundamental right in the United States.
This is pretty much emblematic of Hillary Clinton’s response. Instead of focusing on ways to catch criminals and enforce laws, all her proposals do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase and own guns. Hillary has already stated that she doesn’t respect the Supreme Court’s opinion on the second amendment — which is no different from Republican candidates getting angry at the court over gay marriage — so it makes sense that her solutions would focus on punishment of the American citizens for exercising their constitutionally protected rights instead of trying to stop the criminals. Guns are evil in her mind, and removing them from the country is her goal. She doesn’t care about specifically targeting criminals, she just wants guns off the street no matter if it’s a hardened murderer or an 11 year old defending their family against two home invaders. Or an elderly lady defending her life against repeated armed invaders. She doesn’t care about the more than 50,000 times per year where someone defends their life with a firearm.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about actually reducing crime or combating the “gun violence epidemic” she uses to advance her agenda. All she cares about is disarming as many Americans as possible, not protecting the lives of children. And that’s pretty despicable.
I like your Far Cry 3 reference! Playing it again right now, actually.
There are three main types of people who are violent with firearms:
1) People who commit crimes of passion
2) People involved with the illicit drug trade
3) People who shoot up public places in order to obtain notoriety
Each specific subset of violent people must be handled in different ways, and there is no one measure that can boast any greater than 90% effectiveness in any category.
Of course, that doesn’t sell news or buy votes, so nobody in power will say that.
You miss the point, entirely.
The purpose of all this is NOT to solve some undefined “gun violence” issue. It is to arouse enough unthinking emotion in the public to get elected. Then, if the proposed laws don’t pass, and executive action can’t be supported legally – why the whole issue belongs to “someone else.”
If the proposed laws/executive action are passed and upheld the demoncrats are a step closer to permanent office, and the country is a step closer to being a police state like east germany, rumania, and the old soviet union.
@OldGene: You nailed it. She sees the UCC incident as a chance to say something. She is trying to ramp up emotions and make people think that she cares and that she knows what to do to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the future. The reality is that she does not have a clue how to do that. But, as long as her diatribe gets her more votes and more people listening to her spout her nonsense, I doubt that she cares much about reality and facts.
The Clinton 2016 campaign is experiencing a severe failure to launch issue. She needs a good two-minute hate type of issue to try and gin up a little excitement. As far as I’m concerned, a candidate who comes out as a gun-grabber on any level will never get my vote. Not that I was considering voting for Clinton anyway, which comes as no surprise to her, me or you, I’m sure. She’s harmonizing with the “ban assault weapons” crowd. And “assault clips”. And “ghost guns” and, and… those shoulder thingies… the standard fact-free hysteria.
Hillary couldn’t control the gun in Bills pants !
It went off on every twit he came across and she blamed the vast right wing conspiracy .
Crawl back into the cunt you came out of Hill and leave us alone .
Hillary’s fantasies about what she will do as President are like my fantasies about a wild weekend with Salma Hayek. Sorry, Hildebeest, you cranky old beyotch, but you are never going to be our
FuhrerPresident.“Hillary’s fantasies”
The mind boggles as the stomach turns.
She thinks we owe her the job of HBWIC. She has two problems to overcome that she would find as difficult as hiking her fat butt to the top of Everest: 1. She has no accomplishments to point to, none. 2. There is an indictment with her name on it just waiting for Joe Biden to enter the race.
Please don’t discount Hillary’s accomplishments. She got 4 Americans killed in Libya, she got arms shipped to Syria, she violated untold national security laws with her email fiasco, she traded favors for millions in donations to her foundation, she conducted her own war on women against everyone Willy fornicated with…etc., etc.
#HILLARYFORPRISON 2016
Orange is the new black after all.
Don’t forget her critical part in giving Iran $150 billion and a 10 year plan to fully legal nukes, not to mention the inevitable destruction of Israel. She has a lot of accomplishments she needs to answer to.
Personally ANY candidate speaking of gun control will never EVER get my vote! I am glad Hilarity Clinton is openeing her mouth about exactly what she would do. If you care about defending yourself or your family Hillary Clinton would do everything in her power to make you a victim.
Judging by Bill’s endless philandering, lying is the only time she opens her mouth.
*Rimshot*
“The Federal government can only prohibit sales of items that cross state lines” OMG are you ever naive. Read the “Gun-Free Schools Act (revised)” sometime. “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)
Yeah, the ghost of Roscoe Filburn would like to have a word with you, Nick.
The scary part is you can use some fairly twisted logic original case, but that line of US code is a totally WTF moment. Basically the original law was ruled uncostitionsal so they added a line saying that it is without substantially changing the law.
Your senseless proposals would do nothing about any of the things you say they would fix. You are trying to destroy my freedoms and lying to my face while doing it.
Great read Nick. Lots of meaty information.
So… one problem with Hillary’s proposal on unlicensed dealers, besides it being a redundancy to cover something that’s already covered… is that being in the business of dealing firearms is ambiguous. There was a supreme court case that pretty much said the Government has to prove they knew they were in the business. So basically, ATF has to give you a cease and desist order and then you break it or they otherwise have to catch you in a sting where you admit you know you’re crossing a legal line in selling your firearms.
The Internet sales loophole is the most laughable part, but she knows her audience is low information enough to swallow that pill. As if I could hop on Amazon right now and have a Automatic SuperCapacity AK15 Assault MurderDeathKill Rifle with free 2 day shipping.
Wait! You can’t do that? Man time to cancel my prime subscription.
It’s about taking away our nature demanded ability of self preservation, you silly Constitutionals.
Like most major politicians, she depends on the lack of knowledge with regards to her constituents to further her agenda. She fully well knows most of her policies will not pass muster, but that doesn’t matter as long as she gets what she wants.
FHRC.
Nah. Even Bill won’t do that.
“Clinton plans to call for lawmakers to address the issue. But if they don’t, she will require that anyone “attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed ‘in the business of selling firearms,’”
Her words and actions will guarantee the increase in sales of firearms and ammunition. She is by her own definition “in the business of selling firearms”
No amount of gun control is going to stop violence. The vast majority of gun owners are NOT criminals, and are NOT going to use their guns to commit crimes. I have a State of Arizona CCW permit. If I were a criminal, would I have gone out of my way to let law enforcement know I might be armed?
Even if there were no guns, there would still be violence. Bombs are illegal, other than explosives used in construction/demolition, and they are tightly controlled. And what just happens to be a terrorists favorite weapon? That’s right, bombs. No matter how tightly controlled explosives are, they are still readily available to those who want to use them for criminal purposes.
I see this situation and to many others like it not only as a mental health issue, but a social issue. There has always been violence. And there always will be. Unfortunately during the past 50-60 years, this particular type of violence, which provides no material gain, such as a robbery, has increased significantly during the past few decades. Even back in the early ’70s, I don’t remember things like this happening.
I’m going to get flamed big time for this, but aside from parent’s not doing any parenting anymore, I blame most of it on a combination of technology (computers and social networking sites, smart phones, the glorifying of violence in movies and TV shows (and the serious increase in intensity of that violence) video games (definitely can’t leave them out) and the general acceptance of violence by society as a whole. 50 years ago, Sandy Hook would have been unthinkable, now it has to fight for a place in the ratings driven news. And what’s up with the press? They sure seem to do there share off egging these lunatics on by giving them tons of news coverage, which is what most of them seem to want, even if they have to die to get it.
I don’t know if there is more mental illness than there was in decades past, but it seems that society in general is doing it’s best to draw these nut cases out of the woodwork and put them center stage when they commit atrocities like what we have seen recently. Just remember that these people are crazy, and will do what they want no matter what. They are a special group that. while making people very emotional, should be left out of the picture when looking at overall violence, including gun violence.
I do not have an issue with background checks, I have nothing to hide. I don’t believe they will do any good, as this type of criminal either has no record, or get their guns somewhere else. I can’t help but wonder how many potential gun buyers are actually turned down on background checks?
. And what’s up with the press? They sure seem to do there share off egging these lunatics on . More or less.
“Journalistic integrity” or something or other. Ask Robert.
@Gerald Scott, memory can be misleading as we romanticize the past. Google “Rose-Mar College of Beauty shootings,” “Charles Whitman,” “Anthony Barbaro,” “Edward Charles Allaway” and ” Grover Cleveland Elementary School shootings.” These are just a few of the dozens of mass school shootings during the 60s and 70s.
They were not unthinkable fifty years ago. They happened all the time.
Private sales are not illegal in Oregon, they only require a background check on the buyer now at a FFL, as of a few months ago. Most Sheriffs are not enforcing the law which was not voted on by the people and was signed by a governor that was not voted in office by the people.
That said, good article. Not much to debate against if you’re an anti, well, I’m sure they could say something like “but these laws are common sense!”
The term “common sense” has recently entered cliche territory; but the term at a minimum has to imply some causal connection: the match of a discernible problem to its logical solution. However, Ms. Clinton’s so-called “common sense” gun proposals, universally (pun intended) bandied about, lack any logical cause and effect, a “solution” that has no corresponding problem. How about Ms. Clinton, and everyone else like-minded, try some semblance of truth: I don’t like guns, I don’t like people who own guns, and I want to eliminate both categories. At least be honest Ms. Clinton, despite the tremendous challenge you obviously have in this regard. p.s. Regarding Bill’s conspiracy theories, am I right to understand Bill blames the GOP for Monica Lewinsky sucking his dick in the Oval Office.
here we go again. it is surprising how folks like RF and FoghornLeghorn keep returning to logic and reasoning. why even ask about the motivation behind proposing futile laws and regulations? the answer is simple and clear and repetitive, “We gotta do something.” that’s it. doing “something” is the goal. “feel good” is the reason, power and control the motivation. there is no need to keep obliterating the thinking on the left, it doesn’t matter to them and their supporters. lets focus on building a wave of pro-gun supporters, and position them to continue the fight forever.
Interesting referencing Illinois-in no way are we the worst place in America.Yeah there’s a thriving black market. I was approached(at the gym) by a brotha’ trying to buy a gat. Mighty tempting when you need $… I don’t need a freakin’ permit to purchase,I can buy real scary black rifles(where I live) and I’m not limited to 1 gun/month.Not limited by bullet buttons. And we have Shall-issue CC. Hildebeast for prison 2016…
There needs to be a correction to this article: we have no gun registration in Chicago. Chicago used to have a firearms registry, but it had to be scrapped when the state passed concealed carry. There is no registration at all for guns in Chicago at present. Illinois does have an approval process for any firearm sale at the state level, but it doesn’t deal with what’s being sold or in what quantity, etc, so there’s no ability to turn it into a registry.
Still have to register all private sales with the state police via the FOID check.. That’s still BS, private sales are private, that wouldn’t fly with automobiles, hold while I do a check on your Driver’s License before I can sell it to you
This is about passion and emotion, just ask any gun control proponent.
Hillary is behind Bernie Sanders in the polls big-time, so she sees this as an issue to win votes on. However, RF you make one mistake. As for these proposals being “common sense” as Obama and the antis like to claim, they are nothing of the sort. There is a lot of nuance and detail involved, and even if some of them would work, that still doesn’t justify them.
I am sure if we regulated automobiles in the following way, we could save lives:
All cars limited to 50 horsepower four cylinder engine (because nobody “needs” anymore than that)
All cars limited to 0-60 acceleration in no less than 14 seconds
All cars limited to 60 mph top-speed (because nobody “needs” more than that)—exceptions for law enforcement and government vehicles of course
All SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans outlawed, with the exception of those who have a special license (license conditional on justifiable need for the vehicle and must be renewed every three years)
All SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans limited to 150 horsepower six cylinder diesel engine, with transmission geared down to provide adequate torque for towing (nobody “needs” more than that)
Sports cars illegal on public roads (private race tracks okay)
Special license required to own a sports car (which includes attending racing school)
NOW, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the above, if implemented, cut down a lot of automobile accidents and deaths and high-speed chases, BUT, it would also be very Big Brother and seriously cut into freedom. So even if a gun control policy can be shown to work, that STILL, unto itself, does not justify the policy.
My new bumper sticker will read “Oh, HILL no!!”
The only solution that Hillary has ever had is vinegar and water.
Since Mrs. Clinton has armed security for life at government expense she can afford to take a position where all civilian firearms are confiscated.
My office had CNN on all day, they were pushing story after story about “gun violence” and then praising California’s new law about assisted suicide. But oh, by the way, they go crazy over people offing themselves with guns. It’s OK if people die as long as a gun isn’t involved!
Perfect, not yet president but campaigning to attack the foundation of the very Country she intends to protect?
In a nutshell, and maybe oversimplified, this continued layering has become common and the theater of the progressive left. The chant-like state aims to subdue the minds of followers into a subservient mental state where you never ask questions, you just ask how high to jump.
This also why Donald is kicking butt in the popularity department as we are sooooo sick of this,…stuff.
There is NOTHING common sense about Hillary
proposals. My idea is the BEST idea. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.