Category: background checks

The Wrong Question

As long as we’re talking non-binary, I feel like the little girl in the Shake ‘N Bake commercial:

Of course, the better solution would be NO 4473s, but none of our “gun rights leaders” want to talk about BIDS…

What did Mr. Pynchon say?

[Via WiscoDave]

Who’s Minding the Store?

While Mayor Romero postures for cameras, NSSF is working for Real Solutions. Safer Communities. That includes FixNICS, a campaign to ensure the background check system works as intended by submitting all disqualifying records. [More]

Time was, JPFO’s position was “‘Don’t Fix NICS Background Check System!’ Background system cannot be fixed–go to Plan B.”

Aaron Zelman considered gun rights proponents who supported it and other limitations to be examples of “individual rights hypocrisy.”

The official position was “NICS NEEDS TO BE FIXED. The same way you fix a dog.”

Now, here it is featuring NSSF essays that promote it.

What’s changed?

That’s a rhetorical question.

And a regrettable one.

It’s ‘Gun Rights Leader’-Approved!

A Florida gun owner says he spent two weeks in jail because the government’s background-check machinery treated an old Kentucky misdemeanor as if it were a felony. [More]

NICS… isn’t that the prior restraint infringement hailed by NSSF as a “real solution,” and “applauded” by NRA…?

And endorsed by Bloomberg’s The Trace…?

Lipstick on a Pig

Tomorrow the House will bring my NICS reporting bill for a vote! My bill aims to reduce the number of false denials created by the gun background check system. NICS disproportionately cheats law abiding minorities out of their right to keep & bear arms. [More]

The whole idea of a prior restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms would have killed the Constitution in its crib. That said, I understand the theory of incrementalism, how it’s been used by Democrats with great success to “normalize” infringements, and how dancing around the edges can be a more effective tactic.

But that said, if Massie really wants to throw it in their faces and expose NICS as being less about background checks and more about identifying who owns what, he should introduce the Blind Identification Database System (BIDS) Act.

Bullet Points

The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00…The rulemaking is complete. On May 12, 2025, the Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations and filed them with the Secretary of State. The regulations become effective on July 1, 2025. [More]

They do it because they can.

Guess who won’t pay.

[Via Jess]

Gun Store Owner Defends Approval of Biden Background Check Rule

One would think a Federal Firearms Licensee would be in tune with gun owner reasons and sentiments for Second Amendment absolutism, especially one whose website advertises “we specialize in Paramilitary weapons, military weapons, pistols, etc.” And one would think he would be aware of and responsive to mounting criticism from gun owners angered by his public statements, evidenced by comments under the WJAC article, but especially, on his Facebook. [More]

A bloviating gunkapo finds out pretty quickly his 15 minutes of fame weren’t worth it and is now trying to cover his tracks.

Since When Do They Have to Know What They’re Talking About?

Does Vice President Kamala Harris know what existing gun control laws are? Apparently, not. [More]

She doesn’t need to.

The prohibitionists aren’t really interested in “background checks.” It’s all just another step on the way to the end goal. The DSM is neither interested in nor qualified to educate those it works so relentlessly at deceiving. And forget the information gatekeepers doing anything but punishing “wrong thinking.”

It’s not like anyone dumb or corrupt enough to vote for Kamala is going to question or correct anything she says.

It’s why I constantly chide to share links. If we don’t do it, no one else will.

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before

ATF official: Federal prosecutors turning a blind eye to straw purchasers, again – Events reminiscent of ATF’s “Operation Fast & Furious” scandal. [More]

Hey, if you want to blood dance, you first need blood.

Which invites two questions, one about the open border and the other about the imposition of prior restraints because people who have proven they can’t be trusted with a gun aren’t kept away from the rest of us.

I’ve established a dialog with Mr. Forcelli, have read his book, and will be releasing an interview and a review over the next few weeks.

[Via CP]

Prelude to Confiscation

ATF whistleblowers sound alarm on Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales: report – Watchdog group says alleged ATF proposal would ‘go after law-abiding citizens for private’ gun sales [More]

There’s a way to prove background checks are a subterfuge to enable registration, but nobody on “our side” wants to talk about it.

[Via Jess]

What Better Way to Expose the Fraud of ‘Gun Control’?

America’s Stolen Guns: A Silent Contributor to Gun Crimes in the U.S. (2024) [More]

I get two takeaways from this:

  • “Gun-free zones” make things more dangerous because, aside from leaving “law-abiding” gun owners defenseless, they require them to leave their property unattended and vulnerable to theft. And lock box/safe “solutions” are defeatable, even the best ones if the whole car is stolen.
  • The numbers put the lie to needing serial numbers to trace guns recovered from crime scenes to the guilty party, and if you think about it, the whole “background check” scam.

So naturally, the grabbers will use this to demand more prohibitions.

Kapos Help Camp Guards

NSSF, ATF, DOJ Emphasize ‘Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM’ [More]

Just like the Founders intended!

I wonder how many SHOT attendees drooling over hardware are loudly taking these rope-selling Quislings to task and protesting it’s not about guns, it’s about freedom…?

About as many as manufacturers refusing to sell to or service the confiscators…?