Shot in the Dark

Strib: Dishonest

Oh, look – the Trib has another badly worded poll intended to elicit results to be used as blunt-force DFL rhetoric. In this case, on Minnesotans’ views on gun registration – AKA “Universal Background Checks”

And yes, it’s dishonest. I add emphasis:

A strong majority of Minnesota voters support universal background checks on all gun sales and a ban on semiautomatic military-style rifles like the AR-15, a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll has found.

It’s not “gun sales”. It’s all transfers; lending or borrowing, inheritance, any transfer at all.

And – again – there is no way for “background checks” to be “universal” without trackjng the various transfers through a firearm’s lifetime.

Each of those transactions over time is a data point.

In the world of IT, we have a term for tracking data points; a database.

You can not call this anything but gun registration – and given the DFL’s tack on guns, you can not look at it as anything other than a prelude to confiscation.

Not. One. More. Compromise.

Posted

in

, ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

23 responses to “Strib: Dishonest”

  1. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Liberals always want us to be ‘reasonable,’ to accept ‘common sense’ measures, to ‘meet halfway.’

    With some things, I just don’t see that it’s possible. You can’t be half-way pregnant – you either are, or you aren’t. You can’t be half-way enslaved – you either are, or you aren’t.

    I was going to say you can’t be half-way Catholic, but thinking of John Kerry and the like, maybe you can. How about “you can’t be half-way Saved – either you are, or you aren’t.”

    How can you half-way resist tyranny? How can you half-way defend your loved ones from home invasion? How can you half-way infringe on Constitutional rights? Seems to me those are the same as the others – either you do, or you don’t. I’m just not understanding the logic.

  2. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Our host and JD gravitate to the “gun sales” portion, but that other half regarding “a ban on semiautomatic military-style rifles like the AR-15” is just as bad. The first problem is this ban would immediately encompass semi-auto 22s, like the Ruger 10/22, that were either bought or “souped up” with “military style” geegaws. But the second problem is that most long guns and virtually all pistols are semi-autos, so a later revision to this first ever-so-reasonable ban to basically encompass what is effectively all guns would be eazy-peezee.

  3. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    And – again – there is no way for “background checks” to be “universal” without trackjng the various transfers through a firearm’s lifetime.

    One does not follow the other. We don’t track firearms after the initial purchase now, why would they have to do so in any expanded check requirement?

    I agree that registration is definitely something the reprobates are after, but until they put it in writing, we need to be just as precise in our language as we expect the reprobates to be.

  4. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    jdm, the SCOTUS has pretty much put the kibosh on banning AR’s when they included all firearms in common use under 2nd amendment protection. The Strib is run by a bunch of people who know nothing, so of course their poll question is bogus on it’s face. An AR ban is not gonna happen.

    That’s why California has gone the route of making them functionally worthless. That’s what I see coming your way, not a ban.

  5. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Swiftee, the “common use” analysis intrigues me. If machine guns were in common use in the 1930’s when the government began the first of many incremental regulations towards banning then, is the ultimate ban unconstitutional?

    Do we analyze “common use” before the incremental regulations, or after?

    Does an unconstitutional ban become constitutional if it’s achieved incrementally?

  6. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    When Bellesiles did ‘Arming America’ 20 years ago there was ya know, the fact the data was completely contrived, but also the necessity for that contrivance, which was the mistaken premise that probate records were going to reveal the disposition of a decedents arms.  Cuz, thats not how it works….  I tellya, just as a function of demography, I have x dozen old shotguns, .22s, and deer rifles…. an arsenal, as they say…. all of it handed down in the immediate days after the passing of an old timer in the family.  Good luck getting background checks on inheritance guns, DFL….

    ^^ I read the new bills every year.  There’s usually a carve out for the 10/22 and tube magazine 22s.

  7. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    And – again – there is no way for “background checks” to be “universal” without trackjng the various transfers through a firearm’s lifetime.

    Each of those transactions over time is a data point.

    In the world of IT, we have a term for tracking data points; a database.

    Not sure what is going on here.

    All a NICS check requires is the name and DOB of the buyer. Unless there is something I don’t know about, the make, model and serial of the firearm are not required or recorded. In other words, NICS checks the person, not the firearm.

    However, the ATF has rules (laws) about multiple (at the same time) purchases.

    Again, I could be wrong – and would certainly want to know if I am. I remember quite clearly having to fill out reams of paperwork at Cabella’s to buy a simple 20 gauge over/under – but I think that had more to do with Cabella’s legal department (liability) than anything else.

    Again, I could be wrong.

  8. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Come to think of it. Some commercial firearm buyers, such as gun stores and pawn shops may require make, model and serial to run against the FBI’s systems to query for stolen firearms – but that is quite another thing.

    I could see gun shows and other transactions (eventually) being required to do the same………..as if criminals will do a “stolen check” whenever they sell firearms to each other.

    Not suggesting that I am a fan of such things, just saying I can see the thinking (or lack of thinking).

  9. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    ^^You are close to it…. There is a record keeping requirement on the dealer. Make and serial goes on the 4473, ie, “the bound book”, etc. These are open to inspection to the govt. Keeping a good book is the responsibility a dealer takes on as a function of being able to have a license…. They are obligated to report multiple purchases within a condensed time frame.

    As I say, I always read the state bills. Latz, last year, did I believe manage to write a bill that avoided a permanent data requirement at the state level. Its a good practical question though…. whats the point of asserting two private parties undertook a screening check for a transaction that aint going to be recorded… I mean, why bother….

  10. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    Moderated!

  11. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Form 4473

    Okay, now that makes sense.

    I can see a day in the Orwellian future where it would be required for all transactions – but hopefully, that day will never come.

  12. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    Joe, fully automatic machine guns were legal until Congress passed the National Firearms Act (in ’38 I think). They still are legal according to the feds.

    It didn’t ban their possession, just put in place a tax and background check. States can, and have banned fully auto though (Minnesota does), maybe that’s something that needs to be challenged.

  13. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    I remember when my very liberal boss figured out the problem with a registry–it was like a light going on in his eyes when he said “so they’d basically use it to collect each weapon when they decided to confiscate?”

    “Yup, John, just like in 1938.” Never again, DFL.

  14. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    JK; Welcome to the club!

  15. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Swiftee, don’t forget that in 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, which basically outlawed any sale, to any civilian, of new automatic weapons.

  16. Night Writer Avatar
    Night Writer

    A commenter on the Strib site said we register cars, so what’s the big deal.

    Well, so far (so far), no presidential candidates are suggesting we confiscate cars to prevent global warming, which is supposed to kill millions within 12 years. If/when the government does decide to do that, the registration makes that easier.

    And yeah, it’s only one desperate and deficient candidate suggesting that guns be confiscated by police or the military (if you’re going to violate the Constitution once, why not go all in?), but as we know, today’s lead balloon is tomorrow’s shiny platform plank – and the future’s next year’s iron-clad regulation.

  17. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Good points, NW. The usual suspects are working on prohibiting natural gas appliances, so why not cars?

  18. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    jdm, I see that the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 forbids the transfer or possession of machine guns by private citizens, with certain exceptions. Being that I’m firearmphobic I’m unaware of the exceptions, do you know what they are?

  19. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    I have a non-dealer FFL (..C&R).  I rub elbows from time to time with people who collect / trade in “machine guns”.  The state of the law and the trade is that pre-86 built automatics are allowed / not-banned to those with the stamps and documents, etc.  We’re talking Tommy guns and pre-86 M-16s and some other things.  With post-86 autos, the exception is “law enforcement”.

  20. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Worth noting, regarding a ban on natural gas appliances, is that there is no actual argument that these appliances pollute more than electric versions–I’d guess it’s either a wash, or gas is actually superior to electric this way. What they’re doing is presuming that solar/wind/etc.. will take off, and they’re trying to rent-seek and eliminate the competition.

  21. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    So following up on John K’s comment –

    if guns in common use are constitutionally protected …
    and machine guns were in common use in the 1930’s …
    but Congress has banned them for civilian ownership …

    Is the machine gun ban unconstitutional?

  22. Swiftee Pinochet Avatar
    Swiftee Pinochet

    JD, I wasn’t around mind you, but I doubt machine guns were ever commonly used unless you were running bootleg liquor back then, or a drug cartel today.

    Firearms have always been expensive, machine guns more so. Not many could afford $500 in 1930, or $10k today to buy a fully automatic firearm.

  23. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    Well, there’s the matter of circular obtuse literalness as legal analysis, right….  by which I mean, the machine gun ban is not unconstitutional such that SCOTUS has never ruled it unconstitutional… so it’s thereby constitutional.

    It’s constitutionality can probably be justified by observing correctly that machine guns, though unrestricted for a time, were never in common use among civilians.

    And also that they are not literally banned now… they are just ‘very well-regulated’, which actually is in some spirit of compliance with the text of 2A itself.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.