Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Friday, January 7, 2011

P.S.- NRA opposes measures to stop violence in Mexico

As predicted, the NRA is rearing its' powerful head to oppose the ATF's proposal: " The measure would require around 8,500 gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report sales of two or more high-powered semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the same person within a five day period." Also, as predicted, the rhetoric is the same old same old: " "This is just a shallow excuse to engage in a sweeping firearms registration scheme," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a post splashed on the group's website last month. "The NRA will do everything in its power to stop these 'emergency requirements' from taking effect," he added." 

How this can be seen as a way to institute gun registration in the U.S. escapes me. It bears repeating that any time any reasonable measure is proposed to reduce and prevent gun violence, the code word "registration" is used. Nonsense. This is a measure to stop the violence in Mexico caused by guns coming from our own country. The NRA should be exposed publicly for their total hypocrisy about gun violence. When push comes to shove, they really don't care about lives lost to bullets. It's all about their self serving power and existence as an organization. Common sense tells us that the NRA is wrong. Will common sense prevail?


  1. The ATF can "propose" all it wants. But the ATF has no authority to circumvent the congress and pass new laws.

  2. If this is such a good idea then maybe you need to lobby Congress to pass a law.

    The ATF doesn't get to make up their own laws any more than the NRA does.

  3. I don't disagree with the intent of this measure, just its implementation. It's sloppy and ripe for abuse. Do it right, do it in compliance with the law. That's what we pay you to do. The NRA should oppose it, in its current form. The ACLU should too.

  4. If you agree and think this is such a good idea, you all should be lobbying Congress to get the bill passed.

  5. How are you going to detect patterns if you're not putting the data into a database, and linking names with guns? Congress has made this unlawful already. If you're not computerizing the data, it's not going to be worth anything.

  6. Joan,

    You want me to register any new rifles I purchase -- such as if I want to buy matching AR-15s for my Marine son and I but you want even post a comment about your firearms being registered.

    Do you see why it is difficult to trust the motives of people like you?

  7. As I've said before ... I don't have a problem with this particular rule, but the ATF must follow the law.

    But anytime the government tracks sales that does equal gun registration. In this case I could live with it because it's not much of an expansion on the registration we already have (like forcing every sale to go through a background check would be).

    Would I support such a law if it were proposed? I wouldn't be greatly against it, but I also know that anytime we allow the anti-gun side an inch they try to take a mile.

    Would the Brady Campaign support a clean bill to only do the few things proposed -- track the sales of multiple firearms of a certain type in a few states for a limited period of time (sunset) -- or would they try to expand on that?

    I'm guessing the latter.

  8. Who said anything about registration?

  9. The Brady Campaign supports the current proposal,Stephen.

  10. japete said...

    Who said anything about registration?

    So what would be your definition of a registration? Now this would not be a total registration but it is a partial one.

  11. What is your definition of registration?

  12. Name of buyer Check
    model of guns purchased check
    Serial number check
    The government mandating it be sent to them and maintaining the list check

    looks to me like a list that has all the info to be a registration list. Now like I said it would only be a partial list. The ability to ask you why and where the rifles that you bought went has to be the goal. You can only do that with registration.

  13. "How this can be seen as a way to institute gun registration in the U.S. escapes me."

    Apparently. (The head buried in sand image you used a few posts back springs to mind)

    "What is your definition of registration?"

    Remember...Words Mean Things. From this link:

       /ˈrɛdʒəstər/ Show Spelled[rej-uh-ster]
    a book in which records of acts, events, names, etc., are kept.
    a list or record of such acts, events, etc.
    an entry in such a book, record, or list.
    an official document issued to a merchant ship as evidence of its nationality.
    registration or registry.
    a mechanical device by which certain data are automatically recorded.

    verb (used with object)
    to enter or cause to be entered formally in a register.

    verb (used without object)
    to enter one's name or cause it to be entered in a register; enroll: to register at a motel.

       /ˌrɛdʒəˈstreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[rej-uh-strey-shuhn]
    the act of registering.
    an instance of this.
    an entry in a register.
    the group or number registered.
    an official act of registering one's name in the list of qualified voters.
    a certificate attesting to the fact that someone or something has been registered: a boat registration.

    Ponder for a moment...just what exactly will be done by the BATFE(IEIO) with these reports of multiple sales? What is the stated purpose?

    If you say "to provide a tool for tracking traffickers", then how do you propose they do that if the information is not kept organized for easy retrieval at a later date? You know what we call that in the English language?

    A Register (or registry). When you enter a notation of an object into said registry, it's know as REGISTRATION.

    I don't know if I can make it any simpler to understand.

  14. Are you a gun trafficker living in a border state who plans to buy more than 2 assault rifles in a week? If not, don't worry.

  15. My definition of a registry is that the government can enter my name into a database search, and have it return guns that I own. What they currently can do is, given a gun, find out that I own it. But in order for that to matter they have to recover the gun from somewhere, and if that happens, I want them to be able to trace it back to me.

    As I said, these forms are useless if they aren't being entered into a registry to search for patterns, which necessitates a registry be made of the data. Otherwise, none of this data will be worth anything.

  16. "Are you a gun trafficker living in a border state who plans to buy more than 2 assault rifles in a week? If not, don't worry. "

    A few quotes from a forum I frequent:

    "BATFE lied to Senator Warner’s Office - We caught them!

    When Senator Warner's Office called BATFE to ask about FR Doc. 2010-31755 (collection of data on multiple sales of rifles) they were told that it was only for the Southern border States. NOT true. The Fed. Doc. does not mention any area which means it covers the entire United States and every licensed firearms dealer.

    Both Senators, Webb & Warner are now interested in why BATFE is not allowing the full 90 day comment period.

    "Once this reporting requirement is on the books (assuming it's initially applied only to border states) ... then it's only a small incremental "administrative" change to expand it to ALL states ... and then another "small incremental change" could expand it to EVERY firearm sale.

    Over just a few years, the "goal" could be achieved ... de facto national firearms registration ... while cleverly remaining below the radar through the entire process.

    Deception. Erosion. Incrementalism. Mission creep. What ever you want to call it, it is a worry for us, and despite what you may claim, it is NOT 'nonsense'.

    People were told (by the government) it was 'nonsense' to fear the income tax would expand beyond being levied upon just the 'rich'.

    People were told (by the government) it was 'nonsense' to fear a Social security Number would become a national ID number.

    People were told (by the government) it was 'nonsense' to fear that welfare would become more of a hammock than a safety net

    People were told (by the government) it was 'nonsense' to fear that national health care would increase costs, include rationing, and require one to participate.

    In not one instance were those people wrong.

    As an aside, will you concede, based upon the definitions that I posted, that this proposal would, in function if not in form, qualify as 'registration'?

  17. So then when you fill out your forms at an ffl which are kept only by them in case the ATF is needing to trace a gun used in crime, that is a gun registry? Registration of vehicles is so law enforcement generally can find out who owns which car in the event of a stolen vehicle, accident, etc. I suppose that car dealers have to know in case of a recall for safety purposes. That's a good thing and no one seems to object. That is what a gun registry would be if we had one but we don't because all of you law abiding gun owners making such a big fuss over it have succeeded in killing any bill that brings it up. Actually I don't think any bill has come up for gun registration. What are the law abiding gun owners afraid of? That those jack booted government thugs are going to come pounding on the doors of the many millions of gun owners to take their guns? Picture it- the National Guard, with fewer members then ever now since they are in Iraq and Afghanistan and are part time, are going to be called up for a national emergency and the few of them are are going to fan out in the communities going door to door demanding to see their guns. For good measure, they will enlist the police and sheriff's office, under staffed and underfunded as they are, to help out. Then they might ask us "gun control" advocates and our families to help out. We would be more than happy to do so as we do want your guns for sure and are mostly unarmed and you guys have all the guns. I can see it now- I walk up to your door and politely ring your doorbell. You, your wife and children and pointing your guns at me and I run. Hopefully you don't shoot me anyway.

  18. Someone is feeding you false information there Words. It is for border states only. Don't believe your source. It's wrong. As to the rest of your examples, those are your opinions and not based in fact.

  19. "Someone is feeding you false information there Words. It is for border states only. Don't believe your source. It's wrong."

    I stand corrected. My source did indeed supply inaccurate data which I did then re-post without vetting. Mea culpa.

    The document for the proposed rule change is in fact FR Doc No: 2010-31761, not FR Doc No: 2010-31755 as I initially posted.

    The rest however is factually accurate. Don't believe me? Read the document for yourself:


    Now, I've only been reading the English language since I was five, so there's a possibility of error, but I personally am unable to find any listing of a specific four southern border states. Maybe you can help me out?

    As for me....I'll choose to believe the actual text of the proposed rule as opposed to a press release issued by a PR hack on behalf of the BATFE(IEIO).

    "As to the rest of your examples, those are your opinions and not based in fact. "

    This statement is no lees an opinion than what you claim mine to be. If I were to spend time providing specific hard fact data to support my statements will you agree to post them?

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. seems to be no restriction to any states. Notice that this is from a .gov website


  22. I posted this on Mike’s site a little bit ago, but now that wordsmeanthings has linked us to the actual ATF document, I remain perplexed by the directive:

    The purpose of the information is to require Federal Firearms
    Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the
    licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any
    five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a)
    Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to
    accept a detachable magazine.

    As read, this does not include AR-15 pattern guns (supposedly the weapon of choice for the cartels) in the reporting as they are typically chambering in .223rem. One could argue that .223 is greater than .22, but technically the thousandth of an inch digit is insignificant. They would have to say “greater than .220” for it to be significant. Regardless, the .22LR rimfire (certainly not “high powered”) is dimensionally identical in diameter to the .223rem, so they are either both in or both out. They should have just said “ceterfired” and excluded rimfired and not even bother with caliber.

    Also, I don’t see anything about it only applying to border states either. It doesn’t seem well thought out.

  23. Here is the information I have that is coming from the ATF acting director- " An ATF spokesperson told CNSNews.com that the reporting requirement will apply to all licensed firearms dealers -- approximately 8,500 of them -- in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California." from: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/atf-require-us-arm-dealers-sw-border-sta " The acting director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) says he expects the White House to approve an ATF proposal to impose an emergency regulation requiring U.S. gun dealers along the southwestern border to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles."

  24. I see that the ATF document several of you have referenced does not name the states but everything I have seen about this mentions the border states and only 8500 gun dealers in those states.

  25. Japete, a more realistic scenario than your “jack booted thug” door busting portrait would be this:

    Full nationwide registration gets implemented.

    Enough seats change in favor of gun control that the Brady Campaign makes a strong push for another “assault weapon” ban and gets it passed.

    Violence continues, so Senator Feinstein leads a push (as promised) for an addendum to the AWB for “Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in”.

    Letters are sent to registered owners of “assault weapons” to turn them in for destruction within x days or a warrant shall be issued for their arrest.

    All done on paper- no jack booted thugs. I think this is pretty unlikely, but worth worrying about. You would support these measures, right? These are weapons we don’t “need”.

  26. Perhaps they were only listing how many were affected in the border states, without disclosing how many were affected in all the other states. You've seen the ATF document, and we've heard of the press release... can you post a link to the actual ATF document/version that has the border states restriction?

  27. You put way to much faith in the media. A)Did you get it from the acting director or did you see that NCSNews is reporting that the spokesperson said.. blah blah blah blah? Newspapers get things wrong. I think I would go with the actual documents posted on the government websites, especially if the media is contradicting what you can read in the proposal.

    And explain again how the ATF can get the White House to accept their proposal? That isn't Congress either.

  28. I'm glad you think that the first part of your scenario is more realistic. I would love it if enough seats changed to be in favor of gun control. That's my dream.

  29. "So then when you fill out your forms at an ffl which are kept only by them in case the ATF is needing to trace a gun used in crime, that is a gun registry? "

    It's a form of registration, but it's not, strictly speaking, a registry of the type we're concerned with. Mainly because to do a trace you have to start with a gun recovered. If my gun ends up in the hands of the police it's either because it was lost, or it was stolen, in which case I want them to be able to trace it back to me, the proper owner.

    The registry of the type we're concerned with allows the government to put in a name, and see what guns they own. The problem with that idea is that it presumes that entity one may need to defend oneself against isn't a governmental one, or a pseudo-governmental one.

    And before you say that's a crazy idea, think about what it was like in the reconstruction, post-reconstruction, and later Jim Crow South. Condie Rice has expressed opposition to registration for the very reason the existence of such would have been used to confiscate guns from the black community had it been available to law enforcement at that time.

    For the Second Amendment to serve as a check on government, the government can't know what guns people own.

  30. TS,

    How about just the way that Australia did it, with a mandatory buy-back type program? We recently discussed that here recently so it is fresh in many reader's minds.

    Joan even grudgingly agreed that could be reasonably considered confiscation. Now the trick is getting her to see that a searchable government database of names linked to personally identifying information (addresses, physical descriptions, etc) linked to specific products with serial numbers is a registry.

    She'll accept that definition for cars, voting, or any number of other items but has yet to clarify the differences for a gun registry.

    Joan, since you disagree with our definition of what a registry is, what is your definition? We both agree that it is important to understand the meanings of the words that we're using. I'd be interested to know where the communication breakdown is. A few pro-gun folks have offered up definitions for registry which you've essentially dismissed. So I think it fair to see what your view is, especially as it is your blog!

    Chris from AK

  31. This is an older study- 1993 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80609081993 showi

    It shows that a majority of gun owners and non gun owners support registration of firearms

    Frank Luntz polling results from 2009 http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf
    Question #20 about a national gun registry shows that only 30% of NRA members support a national gun registry but 46% of non NRA member gun owners support it. That's a pretty good support for gun registry. As to the definition, it is understood what that means- I am not going to give my own definition. People on both sides understand what the word registration means. I register to vote. I must register my car. It is a public record kept for certain purposes that are deemed to be important. I don't object to having my name on a list of registered voters. I don't object to registering my car. A gun registry is a way for law enforcement to enforce the laws already on the books by tracing guns to their owners and trying to stop crime. It is no attempt to keep a record so guns can be confiscated as you all are so unreasonably afraid of. If 76% of gun owners agree it's a good idea, it must be a good idea.I would imagine that if we ever had a government so inclined to confiscate guns, they could force their way into the NRA offices and demand a list of their members. That would give them a pretty good idea of where the guns are.

  32. Heather pointed out that I used the wrong figure to say that 76% of gun owners support registration. I was wrong. It's 46%. Some of the poll question results add up to 100% and others combine some of the results so I took the wrong number. I hate it when I do that!!

  33. Glad you brought up the Mayors against illegal guns. I ran across this recently. Seems like if true a bunch of the mayors if convicted could not possess guns anyways


  34. I've seen that one before. It's nonsense.

  35. I would like to see the type of registry which Sebastian describes as the one they worry about. I think their worry is pure paranoia. A registry of that type would assist in crime detection and crime prevention. The paranoid gun owners themselves would be among the biggest winners.