There is one Truth in any political cycle, and that is this. Whenever a highly publicized mass shooting occurs, gun-control nuts will immediately try to exploit that tragedy to pass their beloved and antiquated selection of gun control proposals. It doesn't matter that doing this is ghoulish in the extreme, or that none of their favorite proposals would have stopped the shooter or reduced the number of injured/dead... this is their chance to get laws passed to strike a blow against guns. Not violent crime, notice, just guns.
The favorite proposals I'm talking about are these: closing the "gun show loophole," universal background checks, and an assault weapons ban. And sure enough, in the wake of the Oregon shootings, we are seeing these proposals. I've debunked these before, so I'll focus mostly on the new wrinkles that are appearing.
End the "Three-Day Approval" rule
Under existing law, when someone wants to purchase a gun, he has to undergo a NICS background check. If the FBI doesn't respond with an approval or denial within three-days, the purchase can proceed just as if the background check came back clean. One proposal we are seeing is to end that automatic approval... if they don't get a clean background check, then the sale cannot proceed. In other words, all the FBI has to do is shut down the NICS system because of "technical difficulties," and gun purchases grind to a halt. I'm sorry, but with an administration that is hostile to gun rights, a logical limitation to their power is place automatic approval as a consequence for governmental inaction. If they don't do their jobs, our lives still go on, and we shouldn't be put in a place where the government can quickly and easily stop all gun purchases by the simple expedient of doing their jobs poorly or not at all. This is a bad idea.
Expand the list of prohibited gun owners
Another proposal is to expand the list of people who cannot buy guns. New proposals would include abusive dating partners, individuals under a court-imposed restraining order and convicted stalkers on the prohibited list. I do have some concerns with this. What is an "abusive dating partner," and how is this determined? Is there a trial, at which the accused can defend himself? Notice the second part, because even a court-imposed restraining order doesn't always mean there is a threat. For example, restraining orders are fairly common in divorce cases, especially those involving children, where the order can be used as leverage in the divorce proceedings. Most times, the target of the restraining order has no opportunity to defend himself against the accusation, so this is basically just a court-endorsed accusation. In their zeal to make sure "the wrong people" don't get guns, the standards are getting looser and looser. Eventually, of course, the goal is to include everybody on the prohibited list, and then gun control is achieved.
Crack down on "Straw Purchasers" with increased penalties
The problem here is that not all "straw purchases" are bad. Think about it... does the father of an 18-year old son deserve to be imprisoned for buying that son a hunting rifle for his birthday? Or should a husband go to jail because he bought his wife the Glock G-19 she'd been drooling over for weeks? There's nothing nefarious going on in these instances, yet those family members risk fairly stiff penalties already... why make them suffer more? The law, as written, is myopic and doesn't make a distinction between someone purchasing a gift for a family member and someone buying a gun for a drug dealer or bank robber. Until it does, strengthening the penalties is uncalled for.
That's a short rundown of some of the new proposals that are being bandied about. As usual, none of the proposals would actually reduce violent crime or stop the next mass shooting, but such things don't matter to gun-control nuts.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The favorite proposals I'm talking about are these: closing the "gun show loophole," universal background checks, and an assault weapons ban. And sure enough, in the wake of the Oregon shootings, we are seeing these proposals. I've debunked these before, so I'll focus mostly on the new wrinkles that are appearing.
End the "Three-Day Approval" rule
Under existing law, when someone wants to purchase a gun, he has to undergo a NICS background check. If the FBI doesn't respond with an approval or denial within three-days, the purchase can proceed just as if the background check came back clean. One proposal we are seeing is to end that automatic approval... if they don't get a clean background check, then the sale cannot proceed. In other words, all the FBI has to do is shut down the NICS system because of "technical difficulties," and gun purchases grind to a halt. I'm sorry, but with an administration that is hostile to gun rights, a logical limitation to their power is place automatic approval as a consequence for governmental inaction. If they don't do their jobs, our lives still go on, and we shouldn't be put in a place where the government can quickly and easily stop all gun purchases by the simple expedient of doing their jobs poorly or not at all. This is a bad idea.
Expand the list of prohibited gun owners
Another proposal is to expand the list of people who cannot buy guns. New proposals would include abusive dating partners, individuals under a court-imposed restraining order and convicted stalkers on the prohibited list. I do have some concerns with this. What is an "abusive dating partner," and how is this determined? Is there a trial, at which the accused can defend himself? Notice the second part, because even a court-imposed restraining order doesn't always mean there is a threat. For example, restraining orders are fairly common in divorce cases, especially those involving children, where the order can be used as leverage in the divorce proceedings. Most times, the target of the restraining order has no opportunity to defend himself against the accusation, so this is basically just a court-endorsed accusation. In their zeal to make sure "the wrong people" don't get guns, the standards are getting looser and looser. Eventually, of course, the goal is to include everybody on the prohibited list, and then gun control is achieved.
Crack down on "Straw Purchasers" with increased penalties
The problem here is that not all "straw purchases" are bad. Think about it... does the father of an 18-year old son deserve to be imprisoned for buying that son a hunting rifle for his birthday? Or should a husband go to jail because he bought his wife the Glock G-19 she'd been drooling over for weeks? There's nothing nefarious going on in these instances, yet those family members risk fairly stiff penalties already... why make them suffer more? The law, as written, is myopic and doesn't make a distinction between someone purchasing a gift for a family member and someone buying a gun for a drug dealer or bank robber. Until it does, strengthening the penalties is uncalled for.
That's a short rundown of some of the new proposals that are being bandied about. As usual, none of the proposals would actually reduce violent crime or stop the next mass shooting, but such things don't matter to gun-control nuts.