From Washington Post:

If any proposals in Obama’s gun package are to have any chance of passing the House, he’ll need to win over Republicans like Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia. He represents one of 16 districts held by Republicans that were carried by Obama in 2012 — the swing area of Virginia Beach — potentially making Republicans like him, and others from suburban and swing districts, gettable.

It turns out Rigell does support a key element of Obama’s gun package — in an interview with me, he called on the House GOP leadership to allow it to come to a vote. And Rigell, a gun owner, staunch defender of the Second Amendment, and lifelong NRA member, is seriously considering supporting a second major Obama gun proposal.

Tomorrow, Rigell and a bipartisan group of House members will introduce the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which would stiffen penalties on people who buy firearms for the purpose of transferring them to someone who is prohibited from possessing one, and stiffens penalties for so-called “straw purchasers” who knowingly mislead Federal Firearms Licensees. A similar initiative has been introduced in the Senate, also with bipartisan support, and this idea is a major piece of Obama’s proposal.

The hope is that it will be very hard for the House GOP leadership to oppose a vote on this initiative, because it is widely favored by law enforcement groups and it doesn’t infringe on rights of the law abiding in any way; it only tries to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

“Law enforcement and prosecutors are telling us that there is ambiguity in the current code with respect to gun trafficking,” Rigell tells me. “They’re telling us that prosecution is difficult. It’s clear that this legislation is needed.”

Rigell suggested he’s going to continue pressing for the initiative to be allowed to the House floor for a vote, and suggested this was an opportunity for House Republicans to prove they’re interested in reaching common ground on sensible proposals.

I have no common ground with gun control advocates, and this proposed change in the law will have no effect on crime.  None.  Notice the appeal to authority, i.e., the genetic fallacy, used to invoke law enforcement, as if they have more knowledge and better ethics and morality concerning the reason for and justification of the second amendment or our God-given rights to self defense and resist tyranny.  It’s sophomoric and puerile, but we see it almost daily now when the statists are in front of the cameras.  They won’t appear in public touting their gun control measures without being flanked by men wearing patches and braids and insignia and looking all official.  I laugh when I see it.

After listening to the raving review of what an awesome stud and kingpin Rigell is in defense of our rights, we learn this.

“We’re going to fight to get this thing on the floor,” Rigell said of the proposal, which is also backed by GOP Rep. Patrick Meehan and Dem Reps Elijah Cummings and Carolyn Mahoney. “This is a great opportunity for our conference to demonstrate and to lead on a very important issue and show the American people we’re ready to do what’s right.”

Rigell added that a vote on the measure would allow Republicans to demonstrate that they don’t “see the legislative process through a prism of party affiliation,” and insisted that this kind of thing should be the sort of “common ground” both sides can agree on.

Rigell also said he was open to supporting Obama’s proposal for universal background checks, though he said he hasn’t made a final decision. “I certainly see the merits of that,” he said.

Let me make it perfectly clear.  This Congressman – Rigell – is no friend of’ the second amendment, no defender of our rights, and if he is in fact a member of the NRA, it’s mainly for appearances like most politicians.  As I have pointed out, universal background checks are the way to develop a national gun registry, a national gun registry (and in fact, all gun control) is the action of a wicked government, and a national gun registry is only a pretext for and necessary prerequisite condition for gun confiscations.  And besides the wicked nature of the laws, it isn’t clear what makes this Congressman think that Americans will have any more respect for such a law or follow its stipulations than did Canadians when they had a national gun registry.

Note to the House GOP leadership.  I expect the Senate to cave on gun control and enact wicked legislation (if left up to them).  It’s what they do.  It’s in their nature.  Remember the words of Abigail Adams to John: “All men would be tyrants if they could.”  The GOP currently controls the House, and let it be known that gun owners will hold the GOP accountable for any legislation that passes.  It’s up to you, the ball is in your court, and you’d better get your House in order.  You’ve been warned.

UPDATE: Thanks to David for the link.

In Oakland:

Oakland police officers never intentionally pointed guns at a sleeping toddler, the department said in responding to a court-appointed monitor who expressed alarm about the incident.

The city released a redacted police report on the case late Thursday after the monitor, Robert Warshaw, mentioned it in his latest quarterly report on the Police Department’s progress in completing reforms related to officer conduct.

The incident happened July 13 on the 3200 block of Market Street in West Oakland, police said, when eight officers searched the home of a woman suspected of loitering in a public place with the intent to deal drugs, a misdemeanor.

Officers detained the woman outside, then detained a second woman who answered the front door. They pointed their guns at the second woman because they were in a “violent area” and because of the “elevated dangers of serving narcotic-related search warrants,” Officer Jose Barocio wrote in his incident report.

Barocio said that as he and five other officers moved through the home, he noticed a child on a living-room couch. “Officers made a quick assessment and determined the (child) was asleep,” he wrote, adding that he and Officer Dometrius Fowler “immediately trained our weapons away.”

The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee Versus Garner once and for all determined that law enforcement doesn’t have the authority to enforce the law by power of arms.  Law enforcement can carry weapons for the same reason that I do, i.e., for self defense.

The Oakland police did everything that responsible gun owners don’t do.  They ignored trigger and muzzle discipline.  Let that wash over you again.  I have the right to self defense with a weapon too, and yet I don’t run around pointing my weapon at people, and certainly not toddlers in the crib, and if I do unholster my weapon, my life is in peril.  Bad things are more likely to happen when police point their weapons at people.

As for SWAT raids for misdemeanors where police point their weapons at sleeping toddlers, I have the perfect solution.  Stop the SWAT raids and this won’t happen.  I’m glad I could be of assistance.

Via David Codrea, international scholar Jim Carrey has escaped from the asylum and taken a formal position on assault weapons.

Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting.

Says the man with body guards.

The window was open and we could see everything because they were filming right below the window 20 ft. away. We could see Jim Carrey and hear what he was saying. It was so great. After watching for an hour, they stopped for a lunch break. His bodyguard drove a big black van right below the window and opened the car door. Jim Carrey walked over to the door. I leaned out the window and yelled, “Hey Jim Carrey!!!” and he looked up at me smiled, waved and said, “Hey!” I lost it and started screaming. It was the best thing that ever happened to me in my life.

Prior:

Sylvester Stallone On Assault Weapons

Loyal reader Rich Buckley sends this video along.

To LEOs and N.G., one less than memorable point, and one point that you’d better always remember.  First, pause the video at 42 seconds.  The idiot holding the forend grip like that looks like a girl.  Listen girly-man, go watch some “Art Of The Tactical Carbine” videos by Travis Haley.  You’ll thank me later.

Second point – and like I said, always remember I said this.  If you ever try to confiscate my weapons like that for any reason under the sun, you’ll get shot, without delay, many times.  I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page of the hymnal.  There.  I feel that we understand each other now.

International scholar, Rocky, has some brain damage.

“I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

Well, first I’ll answer on your level, dude.  Like, assault weapons are all cool and stuff, and you’re just being, like, you know, grodie to the max.  Dude.  Gag me with a spoon.  Just be awesome and chill.  Like, you know.

The next answer may require some reading.  Go read the Federalist Papers.  Then read the constitution.  Then read about Mr. Stephen Bayezes, who is alive today because he owned an AR-15 and used it with a 30-round magazine during a home invasion.

Finally, read all about the newest trend in home invasions all across America, i.e., 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-man teams of criminals to ensure the highest rate of success and safety for the home invaders, and lowest rate of successful resistance by the occupants.

Like really, dude.  Don’t be grodie to the max and stuff.

The Washington Post is all sanctimonius and proud of themselves.  Anthony Faiola has penned a piece discussing British gun control measures since 1997, and this blog post enumerates some key takeaway points from the article.  Read either one, or read both just to be sure to capture everything the Post wants you to know.  It’s a veritible wet dream for statists, with at least a starting point for a laundry list of the onerous controls with which the government can saddle its subjects.

It’s a proud day indeed, when the British make the Washington Post as the paragon of peaceful civilization with their tyranny.  I’m certain that the editors were giddy over the prospect of assisting the proposed gun control measures currently before the Senate.  However, the list of benefits doesn’t really include very much except a reduction in so-called “mass shootings.”  It doesn’t go beyond this cursory analysis to the underbelly of crime in the U.K.

Listen to a different take written before this breathless piece at the Post:

When it comes to the question of violent crime, the British are fairly smug. Why? Because, well, there’s less of it in Britain than in America. Bunch of cowboys over there, right?

Wrong. Per the Daily Mail:

Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.

According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.

As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of “violent crime,” there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not.

You see, it’s easy when you queue the case up based on your own predispositions and biases.  If you want to see the effectiveness of gun control, you consider the single metric that shows it to be effective.  Otherwise, you look at all of the other data too – but only if you’re an objective journalist.

I have long claimed that there isn’t any validity in the strict comparison of numbers between countries.  The U.S. has a non-existent Southern border (to every President in the past several decades, America is an idea rather than a place, and the Democrats want the votes while the business owners want the cheap labor – cheap until taxes and medical costs come due).  We have gangs, and at least some of those gangs exist as a testament to the highly interracial nature of our population.  There are all sorts of specifics to consider when discussing the metrics of U.S. crime.

But you don’t have to trot out excuses when the case is so easy.  The British crime metrics don’t demonstrate what the Washington Post wants it to.  Pity.  Wasted ink.

From CNN:

The NRA changed its position on background checks. Tonight, Anderson Cooper got NRA board member Sandy Froman,  to address this during tonight’s town hall.
Transcript of he exchange –

Anderson Cooper: has the NRA changed their position on this? Because Wayne LaPierre is now saying universal background checks don’t work. I saw this testimony he gave in 1999 to the House Judiciary Committee and he said, quote, “We think its reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at gun show. No loopholes for anyone”

Sandy Froman: the answer is yes, the NRA has changed their position. The reason it’s changed their position is because the system doesn’t work. The system is not working now. We have to get that working before we can add any more checks to that system. It’s already overburdened. In Colorado, it takes ten days to do an instant check.

AC: you’re saying if it got working, if the existing laws started to be improved, you might support the imposition?

SF: I don’t know. Let’s get it working. Let’s make sure the 23 states that aren’t reporting the names of people who are mentally ill and have violent tendencies, let’s get them reported into the system.

Has the NRA actually heard us?  I have been harping on this issue, as has David Codrea, Kurt Hofmann and others.  Is this a case of the NRA actually having some backbone?  Are they going to man-up (sorry Sandy) and stick to their guns (and our guns)?

By the way, you have read me say that universal background checks are the way to develop a national gun registry, that a national gun registry (and in fact, all gun control) is the action of a wicked government, and that it is only a pretext for and necessary prerequisite condition for gun confiscations.  Want to see a statist say the same thing? (via Mike).

It’s nice that we’re finally talking about gun control. It’s very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I’m glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I’m supportive of that, it won’t solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don’t want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza’s assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal “favorite”) 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

Again, I like that we’re talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

Prior:

The ATF Doesn’t Know Who Has Guns

Mixed Signals From NRA On Universal Background Check

Universal Background Check And National Gun Registry

David Codrea:

Because that’s true, and it is, you know, looking at quick fix kneejerk ‘solutions’ such as changing state and federal information loop protocols on recorded mental health incidents may not produce any appreciable public safety improvements, and may in fact, endanger not only rights, but people disabled by ‘law’ who have been denied full due process.

Um, yes.  Of course a system like this is highly vulnerable to abuse and negligence.  It’s the government.  My God.  When is the last time you witnessed a government program work the way it should?  Besides, mental health professionals will tell you that their science isn’t as accurate as you think it is and isn’t amenable to such neat categories, that they cannot really predict with any confidence who will become violent, that their science won’t sustain such a burden, that such reporting will intefere with the doctor-patient relationship, and that they don’t want that kind of legal and regulatory pressure on their profession.  They have already told you so.  It’s like asking your Volkswagen Beetle to hit the curves at Daytona International Speedway and race with the big boys.  Man is too complex, and “doctors” don’t know as much about his psyche as this system would demand.  Because, you know, it’s his psyche … his soul … his spirit.  It’s not his big toe.

Finish reading Codrea’s piece at Examiner.  Mental health checks are not the answer to gun violence.  Move on to the real solutions, like abolishing gun free zones as an intrusion on our God-given right of self defense.

Just purchased.

.357 magnum, jacketed soft point, 3 boxes of 50 rounds for $29 per box.  You have to work.  Seriously.  What used to be simple and quick has become a scavenger hunt.

My buddy John Bernard went off on a tear concerning guns, accoutrements and the idiots who currently rule us.  I would like to think that the following articles set him off:

Duck Hunting With Bullets

High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

Automatic Bullets In Rapid-Fire Magazine Clips

But I don’t know.  Here is a taste of his prose.

I have had just about enough of the queue of lambasting idiots whose sole desire is to control every aspect of American’s lives. Their bloated exhortations about things they obviously know nothing about has risen to the level of epidemic. What is more troublesome is that there seems to be an unending assortment and number of mixed nuts fully prepared to accept any edict these windbags hand down from their lofty “thrones” in the City of the Dead (DC) while the combined knowledge of both exhorter and audience, if melted down and strained couldn’t fill a thimble!

I am sick to the point of retching of listening to the absolute nonsensical sputtering about firearms by those who can’t differentiate between a butt stock and a flash suppressor so here is a short lesson in nomenclature to make you sound less stupid.

Go to his place and read the rest.  Let a senior Marine Corps NCO explain the facts for you.