New Mexico governor signs law expanding checks on gun sales


Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican

❝ Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation Friday requiring background checks for virtually all firearm sales in New Mexico.

The bill has been a priority for gun control advocates, who argue the measure merely closes a loophole in state law and will help keep weapons out of the hands of people barred from owning firearms

❝ And as for the argument that the bill limits constitutional rights, the governor countered: “We all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and our communities.”

Article by Andrew Oxford, Santa Fe New Mexican. A worthwhile read.

Australians Stay Alive Another Day Without God-Given Right to Shoot Down Their Friends and Neighbors


Boring isn’t it?

❝ Due to the nation’s controversial and oppressive gun restrictions, no one has died as a result of a mass-shooting on Australian soil today, for the 7827th day in a row.

❝ North Betoota cinema attendant, Christina Upton can’t believe it has been a whole 21 years and 57 days since a heavily armed white Australian male decided to shoot at a crowd of unsuspecting Australian civilians for no reason.

She says the peaceful two decades that have followed are “probably” because the Australian government decided to strip her of a God-given right to own projectile weaponry capable of shooting down helicopters…

❝ Ms Upton, who claims to be able to walk freely outside of her home without fear of being killed by a mass shooter, believes that God-given rights probably play a bigger role in America’s mass shootings than Americans think.

“I don’t think America should be so hard on itself about the mental state of thousands of lonely white losers. We have those people too,”

“…Just in our country those people don’t have access to Russian-made automatic assault rifles that have been invented purely to help military personnel win wars.”…

❝ Local Betoota cop, Uncle Rick Ridgeway, says that this is because idiots have a harder time getting their hands on machine guns than criminals.

“I think America needs to realise that it’s not really the criminals you need to worry about as such. I’d be more concerned about the weirdos,”

“Criminals use guns to help their efforts in making money through crime – they have much less interest in killing you for the sake of it…”

I’ll second that emotion.

Thanks, Honeyman

Think about comparing terrorist attacks to mass shootings in America

#1: More guns don’t make you safer

#2: Shootings are more frequent

#3: Restricting sales works

#4: Background checks work

❝ In most restrictive background checks performed in developed countries, citizens are required to train for gun handling, obtain a license for hunting or provide proof of membership to a shooting range.

Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any “prohibited group,” such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.

❝ Here’s the bottom line. With these provisions, most U.S. active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.

Please, RTFA for all the points examined by Frederic Lemieux. At a minimum, you may learn a few new facts about the reality of American background checks.

#5: Not all mass shootings are terrorism

#6: Historical comparisons may be flawed

Trump’s test for immigrants is hogwash! Of course.


Click to enlarge

Donald Trump’s foreign-policy speech on Monday was more staid than some of his recent outings, but it didn’t necessarily make any more sense…In his speech, Donald Trump proposed an ideological test for immigrants, one that would allow in “only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society.” Is it possible to implement a test like that, and would it be a good idea?

The practical reality is that you are dealing with people who, if they’re fairly sophisticated, are going to almost immediately learn what to say. So unless you intend to tie them to a polygraph, which is a notoriously uncertain device, you’re assuming that you are basically only going to catch the inexperienced or the stupid…

With groups like ISIS or al Qaeda or any of its offshoots, they’ve gotten very, very sophisticated in training. So you are essentially focusing in many ways on the innocent and ignoring the guilty.

Are there more effective ways to screen out people who might be terrorists?

Usually the only way you can really know is through background checks and by tying the data uncovered in intelligence efforts that track terrorists and terrorist training to the screening process. It’s not something where people can pass some kind of magic test of their ideology.

You also have to recognize that part of this is not confronting people who come to this country with intolerance and ignorance of their faith. If you are going to avoid alienating them, you are going to have to show some understanding of the fact that Islam is one of the major faiths of the world…

Mr. Trump mentioned shutting down ISIS’ internet access. Is that possible, and if so, is it wise?

It really is not possible. There are a virtually infinite number of ways that you can disguise who you are and where the message is coming from. There is no magic sign that says, “I’m from ISIS.” The problem you also are getting into here is that to some extent we use the internet to identify some of these people.

Lots more of this in the whole blog post. None of it unexpected. Like many topics considered controversial, support for unworkable solutions comes from the ignorant and the stupid. It’s become a defining question online. Are the people commenting stupid or ignorant?

As ignorant as Donald Trump often is – about anything other than American bankruptcy law – he knows his supporters generally fall into one of those camps. He doesn’t have to worry about whether or not his so-called solutions are legitimate or lawful. They just have to sound powerful to someone who is pissed-off and xenophobic.

Everyone but complete idjits now supports background checks for all gun buyers

More than nine out of 10 U.S. voters support background checks for gun buyers and almost as many say the mentally ill should be barred from buying guns.

A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found that gun owners are almost as likely as the general public to support background checks. And 89 percent of Republicans agree on the issue, only 3 percentage points lower than Democrats.

But only 50 percent said the country needs stricter laws to regulate guns, while 47 percent said they oppose such laws.

Which is a non sequitur.

“Americans are all in on stricter background checks on gun buyers and on keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill,” said Tim Malloy, the Quinnipiac University Poll’s assistant director. “But when it comes to ‘stricter gun control,’ three words which prompt a negative reflex, almost half of those surveyed say ‘hands off.'”

After Adam Lanza killed his mother and 20 students and six teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and then took his own life, there were calls for stricter gun regulations. But the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have lobbied successfully against new laws.

Lobbying – to describe what the NRA does – is a farce. The word is “threaten”. Money changes hands to cajole what faint conscience may exist in Congress. But, when the only question is “How high should I jump, boss?” – we’re only discussing athletic ability as a measure of cowardice.

Like civil rights and other questions requiring backbone, it will take a mighty grassroots movement to nudge most of our elected officials into an upright position.

BTW, the Quinnipiac poll is battling the Rasmussen poll for the position as cheapskate Republican poll – when they can’t afford Gallup. The tell on that is clear enough if you wander back to their numbers for Romney. So what? Even when conservative polls support sensible regulation of access to guns, the nutball fringe and their industry pimps in the NRA still scare Congress enough to stonewall action.

Gaby Giffords rallies women on gun sense

gabrielle-giffords

Shooting victim and former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords sought on Wednesday to rally women behind her push for stricter U.S. gun laws.

Giffords spoke of the risks that women face from domestic violence and stalkers as she called for increased background checks for gun owners.

“Criminals who have guns, stalkers who have guns, abusers who have guns that make them violent are an issue – for mothers, for families, for me and you,” Giffords told a panel discussion held at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington. “Women can lead the way…”

Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, who appeared with her at the panel event, mentioned that the couple own guns themselves, but they back increased background checks to “keep guns out of the hands of those who will stalk and abuse it.”

In April 2013, a handful of Senate Democrats joined Republicans to block a bill that would have expanded background checks to online and gun-show sales just four months after a mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut brought gun control issues back to the public debate.

The National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group had warned lawmakers that the background checks would lead to blah, blah, blah, blah…

Gun violence against women has been in the news after a shooter in Isla Vista, California, killed himself and six others and wounded 13 near the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara in May. Shooter Elliot Rodger had emailed plans to several people beforehand, stating his intention to get revenge on women for rejecting him.

The Isla Vista dipshit is representative of the distorted personalities who can pick up a carfull of firearms and ammo at his favorite neighborhood gun shop easy as pie. I live in a state where even the simple process of registration hasn’t been implemented – regardless of how it might aid recovery of guns after theft, though it would aid police departments in establishing an ownership trail.

Then, the mediocre federal non-rules kick in – especially those exempting so-called gun shows from existing law. Another instance where our politicians demonstrate the leadership of someone trying above all else to avoid any responsibility – and our voters exhibit the understanding and courage of a slug seeking enlightenment in a salt mine.

Is FBI being good little bureaucrats or are they using the law to endanger legal marijuana dealers?

The FBI is refusing to run nationwide background checks on people applying to run legal marijuana businesses in Washington state, even though it has conducted similar checks in Colorado – a discrepancy that illustrates the quandary the Justice Department faces as it allows the states to experiment with regulating a drug that’s long been illegal under federal law.

Washington state has been asking for nearly a year if the FBI would conduct background checks on its applicants, to no avail. The bureau’s refusal raises the possibility that people with troublesome criminal histories could wind up with pot licenses in the state – undermining the department’s own priorities in ensuring that states keep a tight rein on the nascent industry…

The Obama administration has said it wants the states to make sure pot revenue doesn’t go to organized crime and that state marijuana industries don’t become a cover for the trafficking of other illegal drugs. At the same time, it might be tough for the FBI to stomach conducting such background checks – essentially helping the states violate federal law.

…Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, referred an Associated Press inquiry to DOJ headquarters, which would only issue a written statement: “To ensure a consistent national approach, the department has been reviewing its background check policies, and we hope to have guidance for states in the near term,” it said in its entirety…

In the meantime, officials are relying on background checks by the Washington State Patrol to catch any in-state arrests or convictions. Applicants must have lived in Washington state for three months before applying, and many are longtime Washington residents whose criminal history would likely turn up on a State Patrol check. But others specifically moved to the state in hopes of joining the new industry.

The Colorado background checks were performed for medical marijuana – which convinced the FBI to get off their rusty dusty. Those clearances were expanded by the state for recreational use sales.

Once again, a federal bureaucracy is more willing to spend time regulating morality instead of aiding commerce and a peaceful legal life. If their non-cooperation results in felons being licensed it’s no sweat off their disfunctional butts.

Gun retailers support expanded criteria for denying gun purchases

A scientific survey of gun dealers and pawnbrokers in 43 U.S. states has found nearly unanimous support for denying gun purchases based on prior convictions and for serious mental illness with a history of violence or alcohol or drug abuse – conditions that might have prevented Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis from legally purchasing a firearm…

The research is the third report from the UC Davis’ Firearm Licensee Survey, which assessed support among federally licensed firearms retailers for a background check requirement on all firearm transfers and selected criteria for denying handgun purchases.

The survey is believed to be the first of its kind to gather the views of federally licensed firearms dealers and pawnbrokers on important social issues and the firearms business itself…

The survey found that most respondents (55.4 percent) supported a comprehensive background check requirement, with 37.5 percent strongly favoring it. Of those who favored comprehensive background checks, the strength of their support corresponded to the degree that respondents agreed it is too easy for criminals to get guns, recommended more severe sentences for illegal firearm purchasing and provided higher estimates on the prevalence of illegal gun sales by other retailers.

By wide margins, respondents endorsed three existing policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals convicted of aggravated assault involving a lethal weapon or causing serious injury, armed robbery, or domestic violence. They also strongly supported six of nine potential denial criteria proposed in the survey.

As federal and state policies on eligibility to purchase and possess firearms and background check requirements for firearm transfers are undergoing intensive review and, in some cases, modification, the views of gun retailers on illegal gun sales and other criminal activity among buyers and retailers could help legislators devise equitable gun laws.

Not especially surprising except that the study is worth noting – representatives of dealerships and dealers’ associations will be called upon to offer comment and testimony on future legislation.

I haven’t had a discussion with anyone in the retail end of the gun business over changing times in about 10 years or so. The last time I bought a new gun. But, I imagine that an educated self-interest in law is a necessity for today’s gun retailers.