Garden State Patriot

Senator, Laut…err…Lousenberg is the primary sponsor of legislation to close a so-called “gun show loophole.” The bill would do the following:

The Senators’ bill would close the loophole by requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows. The bill defines a gun show as any event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale. In addition, the bill would require:

• gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations; and

• federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to submit information, including the manufacturer/importer, model and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). No personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain personal information in their files. The National Tracing Center would request personal information from an FFL only if a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

In typical liberal style, Lousenberg used the events like the anniversary of the Columbine shootings and the Virginia Tech shootings to gin up emotion and support for his initiative.

With the anniversaries of the Virginia Tech massacre and Columbine shootings in the news, Sen. Frank Lautenberg will push again Tuesday to close the so-called gun show loophole that lets some gun sales go through without background checks of the buyers. In a statement to Whispers, Lautenberg said: “There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special-interest gun lobby in Washington. My legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America and would keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Without this change in the law, anyone—from felons to fugitives—can buy a gun at a gun show, no questions asked. That needs to change.”

Interestingly, liberals like Lousenberg who push for anti-gun legislation don’t seem to be as interested in protecting us from criminals who cross our borders and commit violent crimes, let alone preventing terrorists from entering our country anywhere along our southern border (but I digress).

The Viriginia Tech killer, I might add, did not purchase his weapons at a gun show.

More to the point, however, the first thing to understand about this is exactly what is being referred to as a “loophole.” Wikipedia describes it as follows:

The “gun show loophole” is a term coined by gun control advocates to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a “loophole” in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms. United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are “not engaged in the business” of selling firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at any other location, in 24 states (as of 1998).^[9]

Senator Lousenberg and his anti-gun partners would like to have us believe that dealers are somehow skirting the law, but this is simply not the case. The law just does not require private individuals to have a license. And any dealer who tried to sell a firearm without a license would immediately be arrested and prosecuted.

Furthermore, very few of these private transactions actually even occur at gun shows. In an article by David Kopel of the Cato Institute, David explains:

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.

If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.

Yet HCI claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren’t selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.”

David’s last point is likewise quite important. Lousenberg has used the 25-50 percent statistic in his efforts to sell this bill. But he is clearly being disingenuous in this respect because, as Mr. Kopel points out, many of the vendors at gun shows are not selling guns.

Last but not least, very few gun crimes – a mere 2% in fact – are committed using firearms purchased at gun shows. Again, via Wikipedia:

A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.^[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show. The most common sources (35%) were family or friends.^[11]

Considering the facts I have outlined, it is difficult not to conclude that this is just another effort by the left-wing to infringe on the right to bear arms and an utterly misguided attempt prevent gun crimes. Even if enacted, this legislation would do little if anything in this respect. But what it would do is set the stage for the next incremental step to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Americans deserve an honest and truthful debate about gun issues, not the kind of demagoguery being put forth by the likes of Senator Lousenberg.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

A little education for my readers. Here is a video explaining our true form of government. Should be required viewing for every American citizen. (h/t Justified Right blog)

While I’m on this subject, I should give a mention regarding Mark Levin’s new book, Liberty and Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto. Just released this week, the book is selling like crazy (#1 already on Amazon.com) and is surely a must-read.

At a time when so many of our fellow citizens seemingly ignorant of the foundations of our democracy, and so willing to surrender their freedoms to an authoritarian central government, Mark’s book couldn’t come at a more appropriate time.

Here’s an excerpt of American Thinker’s review of Mark’s book.

Mark Levin’s new book, published today, is essential reading. It is a remarkable work on several different levels. It takes no degree of clairvoyance to predict that it will become an enormous best seller and very soon begin to influence the national political debate.

Liberty and Tyranny artfully presents a harmonious marriage of the timeless with the timely. On the one hand, the book is a thorough yet compact briefing on the major political issues of this era. On the other hand, the author brings to bear the principles of the American Founders and Framers of the Constitution (and the great thinkers who guided them), illustrating, dissecting, and explaining our current political arguments, while enlightening the reader with the genuine wisdom bequeathed to all of us — the sacred trust of the Founders, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and Federalist Papers, all of which are quoted and applied with insight and precision.

All in all, this is essential reading for every American.

Senator DeMint has been posting on Twitter (would that be ‘twittering’ or ‘tweeting’??) regarding Un-Fairness Doctrine debate. GOP amendment banning Fairness Doctrine passed 87-11…BUT Durbin amendment which will allow FCC to regulate radio content passed 57-41. In other words, laying the groundwork for back door censorship of talk radio – just not calling it what it really is. First Amendment be damned!

Here is some audio from the debate on the Senate floor.

To join the movement to help fight this go to protectfairness.com.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.  It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.  For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? -Alexis de Tocqueville

I came across an interesting pair of articles by Michael Ledeeen. Ledeen’s thesis is that we are currently on a road to fascism - not socialism. I find his argument compelling.

Indeed, the real issue in my mind with the Scheme-ulous bill is one of liberty and the proper role of government. Certainly, the economic aspects of this incredible transfer of wealth are extremely troubling. But money is in essence a means to an end; it’s a means to our freedom and liberty; a means to find our own course in our own unique pursuit of happiness. Above all else, this confiscation of wealth which we have just witnessed is a direct assault on that liberty. Its aim is to empower government and wrest away our ability to control our own destiny.

Of course, for us as a nation to have arrived at this point has required a slow, gradual erosion of freedom. It requires a populace who has not resisted, but who has embraced, the notion that government is merely implementing policies which are in our own best interests. As Tocqueville points out, this is exactly what will undermine our democracy. 

He foresees a slow death of freedom.  The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened.  The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.

I highly recommend reading Mr. Ledeen’s tandem of articles. Perhaps, it will open some eyes. (h/t Little Green Footballs)

1. We’re All Fascists Now
2. We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

My latest post is up at CWA! This one may elicit some commentary, so please click here to check it out.

Americans continue to lose more liberties every day right under their nose. In particular, American business owners are gradually losing more and more of their rights to do business the way the say fit. The latest blow comes from New Jersey, where Attorney General Anne Milgram has forced eHarmony to offer dating service to gays and lesbians even though this is not the company’s forte. Milgrram apparently sees a civil right that does not exist, essentially making the case that businesses can not tailor their market to a particular demographic.

From Stan Gendlin (Conservatives with Attitude!):

Anne Milgram, New Jersey’s 57th Attorney General, has decided it is the states responsibility to dictate business models. Milgram has intervened in a lawsuit of a homosexual man suing eHarmony, an online dating site whose match making ability is based on 30 compatibility questions created from research about heterosexual couples, and is forcing eHarmony to offer same sex match making on their website.

When did the state receive the authority to regulate internal business decisions of private companies? How is this legal? Is there discrimination because eHarmony focused their years of research on heterosexual couples and made a business model off of this? I think not, heterosexual couples make up the large majority of couples in this country and thus are a more profitable market.

According to Milgram, this is a civil rights issue! Does that mean she can force restaurants to offer vegetarian meals or vice versa? Can she force Adult Communities to take in younger people? Can she force a Hollywood action studio to start making homosexual comedies? This is absurd.

If you Google homosexual dating, you get a thousand different ways to connect with other single gays. eHarmony, on the other hand is a Christian targeted and promoted dating service. Like I said previously all these lawsuits and legislative pushes are to spit in the face of Christianity, this is not about equality.

Tens of millions were spent by homosexuals over semantics in California, where they have ALL the same rights as heterosexuals through civil-unions.

New Jersey needs an immediate change in direction, I hope the GOP fields someone this year to take us there.

The Founding Fathers never had any intention, nor desire, to see our government intervene in the affairs of men in such ways. We have a court system that is out of control thanks to people like Milgram, as well as judges who ignore the Constitution and precedent and make law from the bench. It’s time we all stand up and take it back by, as Stan says, changing direction and electing people to office who actually respect the Constitution.

For more on this also check Michelle Malkin’s post.