May 9, 2013

CCRKBA: Data Conflicts with Gun Control Rhetoric

BELLEVUE, WA – Newly-released data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) proves that more guns in private hands do not lead to more murders, and a Pew Research study showing widespread ignorance of this fact suggests that the public has been misled, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“The BJS data covers 1993 to 2011 and suggests that for almost 20 years, the gun prohibition lobby has been consistently wrong about private gun ownership and its correlation to crime,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The Pew report suggests that the public has been essentially hoodwinked into believing otherwise.”

An Associated Press report about the Pew Research revelation suggested that “intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings” may help to skew the public perception about gun-related violent crime.

“The release of these reports blows holes in the gun prohibition agenda,” Gottlieb stated. “If violent crime had gone upward, gun grabbers would exploit the fact as proof that more guns in private hands lead to more violent crime.

“However,” he added, “if the gun rights community argued that the BJS data proves increased gun ownership leads to lower violent crime rates, the dominant liberal media would savage the notion. Of course, this is the same anti-gun press that has sensationalized crimes while remaining silent about the actual crime data.

“The BJS data shows that gun-related homicides declined by 39 percent from 1993 to 2011, and the Pew Research Center found that gun-related homicides fell from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010, a decline of 49 percent,” Gottlieb said. “The declining percentages go in the same direction. Firearms-related homicides have plummeted dramatically while more Americans bought more guns, including millions of semi-automatic modern sporting rifles. More people are licensed to carry in more states, and crime is down.

“It is time for the gun control crowd to acknowledge they have been consistently and undeniably wrong,” Gottlieb concluded, “and admit that their agenda has never been about crime, but about public disarmament. They don’t want to prevent gun crime, they want to prevent gun ownership.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

We began our annual hiatus with the distribution of our Friday, December 14 edition. Only a few hours later, a disturbed kid and his stolen guns rampaging at Sandy Hook Elementary School in suburban Connecticut may have single-handedly reversed the political landscape for gun owners.

Trying to put the happenings, hysteria and hype of the past few days in perspective isn’t going to happen in in a single column. Only time will put this in perspective.

Since the shooting the market for guns in an already hot marketplace has superheated. Literally anything that attaches to, feeds, or otherwise supports the function of the modern sporting rifle has been snapped up by gun owners concerned that big changes are ahead. Ditto ammunition and many handguns like those carried by the military and police officers.

Barring our changing the way we deal with a crisis like this one, those changes are more than a possibility.

Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein will introduce proposed legislation that would impact every gun owner. If you’ve not already read her bill, I’d direct you to Feinstein’s Senate website for her identification of the bill’s key elements:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119.

Passed – in any form – Senator Feinstein’s bill would permanently change our world. Having seen a ten year ban on “assault rifles” expire, Feinstein’s learned her lesson. She’s taken considerable pains to address subtle points unaddressed in the previous ban. If you own a modern sporting rifle or any other firearm capable of accepting more than a ten-round fuel supply, her bill assures that you’ll be one step closer to being required to either a) register or, b) surrender that firearm or be declared a criminal.

Not for something you did illegally, but for owning something you believe is your inalienable right to own.

The fact you’ve done nothing wrong does not matter.

Neither do the years of inaccuracies in firearms reporting you’ve pointed out to your friends and co-workers.

Ultimately, the Sandy Hook shooting won’t matter.

It may have been a catalyst, but this fight has always been about power, not people. It’s also about payback.

Today, hardcore anti-gunners are taking bold steps because they believe they can win.

They feel they “owe us” for the United States Supreme Court’s reversals of gun restrictions in DC and Chicago, and for having made anti-gun legislation a losing proposition over the past few election cycles.

This isn’t an election year, so moderates – on both sides of the aisle – are susceptible to political pressure, especially this hot-button topic. It sounds cynical, but they believe voters will forget how they voted and accept any new restrictions before they face the ballot box again.

But they will answer to the mainstream media – the minute their vote goes on the record.

Despite some even-handed reporting, it’s no secret where the majority of the media falls on this issue: they believe gun control is the answer.

To them, “assault rifles” not lunatics are why people are gunned down wholesale in “gun free zones”.

No, their opinion isn’t fact-based. That’s a fact we’d better accept, too.

And don’t bother pointing out that gun owners haven’t gotten a fair shake in the media in a very long time.

We’re far beyond that at this point.

Clip or magazine, semi- versus full-automatic; none of that stuff matters anymore.

Anti-gunners are moving – now – because they believe they can win – now.

They have the administration and most mainstream media execs on their side.

They believe that’s all it takes.

Barring everyone who believes in the individual right to own a firearm – whether they choose to own one themselves or not – speaking out, they’ll be right. And the right of firearms ownership will disappear faster than any of us can imagine.

Our doing business as usual and expecting trade organizations or membership groups to handle the heavy lifting in Washington just will not work this time.

It’s going to take regular people speaking out to stop – or at least slowdown- what’s coming otherwise.

We have something on the order of 51,000 retail gun stores. More licensed gun dealers than supermarkets, Starbucks or McDonalds.

In December 2012, 2,783,765 NICS checks were made. That’s nearly a million more than December 2011. 2011 eclipsed all previous years. Fifty-three percent of American households are thought to own a firearm. There’s really no definitive way of knowing the exact number – yet.

And for nearly five years, the firearms industry has been enjoying unprecedented sales. Already- record numbers have been pushed off the charts by the justifiable concerns of gun owners fearing action by the Obama administration.

This sector of the economy is doing quite well, thank you.

But that doesn’t mean anything.

The jobs the gun industry provides weren’t considered in the proposed legislation. Neither were the voluntary taxes paid by hunters and shooters that support conservation nationwide.

Some in the gun industry have already recognized that. And as they continue to make record numbers, they’re quietly discussing acceptable concessions.

Those concessions include a possible national adoption of regulations already in place in some areas (think California’s mandated bullet-buttons or 10-round maximum magazine capacities in a variety of states).

Others reportedly on the table for consideration don’t outlaw manufacturing or sales of the modern sporting rifle, but severely restrict what’s “acceptable” to the government.

It is unrealistic to expect companies to fight this for us. While companies are operated by individuals, a company’s ultimate goal never changes: to make money for its owners.

That discourages do-or-die fights with regulators and politicians. Compromise, not confrontation, minimizes the impact of change.

It’s equally unreasonable to expect membership groups, lobbyists, political parties or trade organizations to do the heavy-lifting.

They thrive in times of controversy, so they’re putting themselves at risk if they go “all-in” against increasingly anti-gun sentiments. It might sound cynical, but neither side of the gun issue has been willing to eliminate the other – until now.

Only regular people speaking out – clearly -has a chance of winning this one. Passing the buck won’t cut it.

SHOT – the industry’s largest trade show – is less than two weeks away and many companies are all in complete dither over what to do there – or even if they should go.

Some have withdrawn major new product introductions. Others are waiting to print catalogs because they want to be sure “what’s legal” before they go to that expense. Others are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

All of them dread the protesters and heavy media scrutiny that will surround a high-profile event like SHOT Show.

Some retailers and distributors have already caved. I’m not going to list them, because it doesn’t matter if I do or not. You will decide who sold-out, not me.

They exercised their right to decide what they sell. You will decide where to spend your money. Ultimately, that’s the only “voice” they hear. It was a calculated political risk, but if the result has no economic impact, their decision won’t matter.

And taking another “unacceptable” gun off the shelves later will be even easier.

Across the country “No Guns” signs are popping up. In states like Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, New Mexico and Montana, not Massachusetts, New York and California.

In states where gun owners were accepted -if not welcomed – until only a few days ago businesses are telling gun owners they’re no longer welcome.

It’s significant that teachers across the country are signing up for firearms training wherever it’s offered. It’s important because teachers realize – better than anyone else – that “Gun Free Zones” aren’t deterrents to criminals and crazies.

School systems nationwide are beginning to embrace, or at least entertain, the NRA’s National School Shield education and training emergency response program. They might not like to admit it, but they know “the best person to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

But if we expect the NRA to win this fight for us, we are badly mistaken.

An NRA label on any idea is enough to turn some people off, including many gun owners. And the mainstream media’s still steamed over being denied the chance to ask questions at the NRA’s announcement of the School Shield program. I was there – I know how angry they were -and still are- at the idea they were used as “props”.

Wayne LaPierre’s lengthy review of a litany of media faults, omissions and inaccuracies – prior to announcing the program – didn’t help, but it certainly didn’t warrant the outpouring of nationwide media bile that followed.

The rancor clarified the mainstream media’s position when it comes to the NRA in particular, and gun owners in general. To them, we’re whack jobs who can’t be trusted. And not just some of us – all of us.

That’s why I don’t believe you can presume everyone else will fight off this attack on gun rights for you.

No pro-gun organization can expect the open-minded consideration of the media, politicians, or even our neighbors who truly believe guns are what’s wrong with America.

We’ve been reduced to a faceless group of crazies, and being marginalized is a step toward being criminalized and eventually exterminated. That’s not hysteria, that’s history.

There’s no organization that can step up and make the case that gun owners aren’t all fanatical crazies. Organizations represent nameless, faceless groups, not “real” people.

Only by putting faces people recognize – our faces- on the faceless numbers of gun owners can we hope to reverse the growing acceptance of the “reasonableness” of more gun controls.

We have to make this fight personal – or we’re all going to lose.

–Jim Shepherd

Continues to claim ignorance that DoJ was helping send guns to Mexico

Appropriately, it’s Groundhog Day.

Because Attorney General Eric Holder has just testified that he spent another year hiding in a hole, oblivious to what was going on in his department or even what was in his inbox.

In testimony before Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Holder’s defense was — in the words of one DEMOCRAT — the “Sergeant Schultz defense”:  “I know nooothing!”

This, notwithstanding the fact that there were no fewer than seven memoranda sent to Holder (as early as July, 2010) briefing him on the Fast and Furious Operation, and the fact that his department was intentionally allowing guns to go across the border to Mexican drug cartels.

Those guns have already resulted in the deaths of over 300 Mexican nationals, in addition to U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry.

Yet, Holder smugly asserted that he didn’t have time to read memoranda forwarded to him by his subordinates detailing criminal conduct by his department under his watch.  (Never mind Holder’s assertion today that his management style was one that is “hands on.”)

Which leads to this question:  Could a hedge fund manager escape culpability by arguing that he didn’t read letters from his subordinates or attorneys warning him of criminal misconduct?

And another thing:  What was Eric Holder doing that was so important that the deaths of 300 people didn’t warrant any of his “precious” time?

Let Holder explain to the families of the dead that their lives were trivial because he was so busy promulgating illegal regulations governing multiple gun sales reporting, unlawfully banning shotgun importation, and unconstitutionally justifying non-recess recess appointments.

Holder protested that questioners were “disrespecting” his office.  But Holder has dragged his office and his department into the cesspool.  The proper response to him is: “Disrespect?  What about 300 murdered Mexicans?”  It is time for him to go.

ACTION: Click here to contact your senators and representative.  Demand that they call for Holder’s resignation.

Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has drafted a bill that would block U.S. funding to the United Nations if it seeks to implement gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens.

Despite victories by gun owners in elections and legislative battles throughout the country in recent years, on the international front gun control is moving quickly.

Most significantly, in 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty—a treaty that will have severe consequences for American gun owners.

Meetings are held behind close doors, but from information gathered by GOA we believe that the ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.

The ATT will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (like the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.

President Obama, not surprisingly, welcomes the treaty.  He knows that he is unlikely to get such radical proposals through the Congress, so the UN provides him a backdoor way to enact gun control.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on board and began pushing for the treaty as soon as she was confirmed in her position.  “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area,” she said.

Since treaties must be ratified by the Senate, GOA is working continually to buck up weak-kneed Senators who might be pressured to ratify the treaty.

But the House, which controls the nations’ purse strings, can also play a role in killing the ATT (or any other anti-gun treaty, for that matter).

Rep. Joe Walsh’s legislation will cut U.S. funding to the UN if the international body imposes any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights.

This is a huge deal, because without the contributions of the United States, the UN would be crippled financially.  According to government reports, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget.

American gun owners, in other words, are funding the organization that wants to do away with the Second Amendment!

Rep. Walsh is putting the UN on notice: back off our gun rights.

Entitled the “The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011,” Rep. Walsh is now seeking original cosponsors to join him in the House.  He plans to introduce the bill within the next week.

Rep. Walsh highlights for his House colleagues the necessity of his proposal, noting that:

• It is the constitutional power of Congress to determine United States foreign policy through the ratification of international treaties;
• U.S. Presidents, by signing on to treaties, have opened the door for international organizations to unilaterally regulate the lives of citizens of the United States;
• International and transnational organizations force their rules on people of the United States through conventions, multilateral agreements, and nonratified treaties, such as agreements that affect the private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and
• United States sovereignty is risked by domestic legal applicability of international treaties and executive agreements that have not been voted on and congressionally adopted through formal processes.

Let’s help Rep. Joe Walsh get as many cosponsors as possible.  In the process, we’ll find out how many Representatives are willing to stand up to the behemoth United Nations in defense of the Second Amendment.

Click here to send your Representative a prewritten message.

A bill promising the most significant expansion of national gun rights since the current gun control regime began with the Handgun Control Act of 1968, passed the House 272 to 154 November 16 at 5:50 p.m. after two days of debate.

“The right to defend yourself and your loved ones from criminals is fundamental, and it should not be extinguished when you cross a state border,” said Rep. Clifford B. Stearns (R.-FL), who lead the fight with his co-sponsor Rep. J. Heath Shuler (D.-N.C.), a leader of the caucus of moderate Democrats known as the Blue Dogs.

“H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed carry permits in much the same way driver’s licenses are recognized,” said Stearns.

“Although 49 states issue these permits and many have reciprocity agreements with other states, the lack of uniformity makes it hard for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from state to state,” he said.

“This legislation will simply make it far easier for law-abiding permit holders to know they are in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel,” he said.

Despite the mix of Democrats and Republicans voting for the bill, there have been critics.

On the Left, Sen. Scott P. Brown (R.-Mass.), who won a special election to succeed Edward M. Kennedy Sr., a ferocious opponent of gun rights after two of his brothers were cut down by assassin bullets, sent a November 3 “Dear Friend” letter to Bay State mayors assuring them that he would oppose the bill if the matter came before the Senate.

Brown, who was endorsed and strongly supported in his election by the National Rifle Association, echoed the arguments of other liberals when he called the bill a violation of states’ rights.

Christopher W. Cox, the executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said, “NRA has made the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people.”

Cox said the reciprocity for regular people should be as easy as the current practice between states for recognizing carry permits held by armored car guards.

“People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise,” he said.

Another gun rights organization, Gun Owners of America, had concerns about the bill, preferring H.R. 2900, sponsored by Rep. Paul Broun (R.-Ga.).

One problem with H.R. 822 is that it destroys “Vermont Carry,” said John Velleco, GOA’s director of federal affairs.

“In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime,” he said. “The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.”

The problem is that because there is no permit, there is nothing for another state to recognize, he said.

Broun’s bill would allow the Vermont driver’s license to suffice, he said.

Another problem is that constitutionally, the Stearns-Shuler bill relies on the Commerce Clause, and the bill’s authority is grounded in the act of transporting guns across interstate lines being classified as commerce, he said. This stretch opens the legislation to court challenge.

The Broun bill is grounded in the Second Amendment, he said.

“H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Broun’s legislation,” Velleco said.

To mitigate to flaws in the Stearns-Shuler bill, GOA supported an amendment by Rep. W. Robert “Rob” Woodall III (R.-Ga.), which would assert that existing arrangements between states, such as 40 states have with each other, would supersede federal standards of reciprocity regulations, he said.

“This will help to ensure that states are not deterred from seeking out reciprocity agreements and it acts as a check against future federal abuse of the nation’s gun laws,” he said.

Now it is the Senate’s turn to act.

All eyes are Sen. John R. Thune (R.-S.D.). Thune attempted to gain Senate approval for reciprocity for national concealed carry in the last session of Congress with legislation very close to the language in the Broun bill. Ultimately, however, Thune fell two votes short of the 60 votes he needed to end a Democratic filibuster.

Neil W. McCabe is the editor of Guns & Patriots. McCabe, was a reporter and photographer at The Pilot, Boston’s Catholic newspaper for several years. An Army reservist, he served 14 months in Iraq as a combat historian. Follow him on  Twitter