Time.com.

An aide tracked down LaPierre, and soon LaPierre’s voice was coming through the gray speaker phone on the Resolute Desk. Trump and aides ran down the list of actions the White House is considering. The White House tried to impress upon LaPierre that Trump was “in a good place” and had staff working on the proposals who were concerned about the Second Amendment, mental health, and solving the problem of mass shootings, the senior White House official said.

“What we are talking about is meaningful background checks that would actually go to prevent [shootings like] Sandy Hook or El Paso or Parkland. Those are things we can work on that have cause and effect,” a second White House official told TIME. “This wasn’t Wayne LaPierre dictating to us. We were telling him, ‘Here are the things we are looking at, how big of a fight are you going to put up?’ For most of them, he was like, ‘Whatever you say.’ For a couple, he said, ‘I don’t know about that, I haven’t seen that one yet.’”

[ … ]

But by Wednesday, Trump’s tune had changed. “I have an appetite for background checks,” he said.

Sounds like Wayne didn’t put up much of a fight.

Yahoo.com.

Trump confirmed that he discussed background checks with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, but he disputed news reports that he told LaPierre that background checks were off the table.

“I have an appetite for background checks,” Trump said from the White House South Lawn as he departed for an event in Louisville, Kentucky. “We’re going to be doing background checks. … We’re going to be filling in some of the loopholes.”

Hmm .. “loopholes.”  Sounds like he’s adopted the gun controllers’ lingo.

Very well.  One term president.  Can you sense that excitement to go out and vote among the people three years ago ebbing away?

In Utah.

After a rash of mass shootings last month, Gov. Gary Herbert said Wednesday all gun control measures should be on the table for discussion.

Speaking at his monthly KUED news conference, the governor specifically mentioned proposals such as expanded background checks and age limits. He also brought up extreme risk protection orders, or “red flag” laws, which allow law enforcement to temporarily confiscate the weapons of someone deemed a danger to themselves or others.

“I think all of those things are going to be at the heart of the discussion,” Herbert said, adding that “we need to take some action.”

So readers in Utah may want to prepare for this.  The more disappointing one for me is Greg Abbot.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday raised concern about private firearm sales but didn’t commit to crack down on them or act on gun control issues following a meeting on ways to prevent mass shootings such as the El Paso attack that killed 22 people.

[ … ]

Right now there is nothing in law that would prevent one stranger from selling a gun to a terrorist, and obviously that’s a danger that needs to be looked into,” Abbott said.

Yea, that’s exactly what happens in 99% person-to-person transfers.  A stranger sells a gun to a terrorist.

As I said, Abbot is the real disappointment here.  I wouldn’t have guessed this of him, but here we are.  It’s the thing to do – something needs to be done, and right now.  So since terrorists don’t announce their intentions or wear shirts identifying themselves, we’ll just have to prohibit Bob from selling Frank that gun he always wanted to buy from him.  Unless, of course, the FedGov gets their say, and their cut.

Politico.

I’m a long-time gun rights proponent with pretty solid credentials. I lobbied for the NRA. I am the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and I even gave Ronald Reagan his first shooting lesson with a customized AR-15 when I ran the Firearm Industry’s Trade Association in 1992. I am also someone who has worked successfully on bipartisan gun control measures, specifically a child safety lock agreement supported by Bill Clinton, which explains in part why I am also a former NRA lobbyist.

So now that he’s established his creds, let’s take a look at what he’s proposing to mend the wounds that America suffers.

Today’s current gun control mantra is “universal background checks.” The Brady law passed in 1993 mandated background checks for gun purchasers at retail gun shops. These transactions are commercial in nature and generally between strangers—the firearms dealer and the buyer. Twenty years ago, the firearms industry (and even the NRA) supported these checks at gun shows as well as retail gun shops, but the original legislation extended only to federally licensed dealers, with no attempt made to extend that jurisdiction to nondealers. Today, you’ll find gun owners support background checks for all commercial transactions. That includes gun shows, flea markets and internet sales purchases. Strangers can’t possibly know the backgrounds of the buyer and these checks can prevent the unintentional transfer of a gun to a disqualified individual.

But when the word “universal” is used, gun owners rebel. Why? They don’t want to be turned into criminals for giving a firearm to their wife, their kids or their parents without a background check—which is exactly what they fear could happen if a law mandates background checks for all gun sales in the U.S.

So why not extend the Brady background check to all commercial sales, including gun shows, internet sales and flea markets, while carefully and responsibly crafting exemptions for relatives, friends and co-workers whom the seller has personally known for more than a year? And in cases where there is some doubt about the relationship, let’s encourage people to get the checks by giving them the same liability protection when crimes are committed with those guns that retail dealers have now. Compromise, that dirty word, means we both get something in the transaction that’s useful to us.

With these exemptions in place, opposition would be diminished, and legislation based on sound policy not “gotcha politics” will more easily be enacted. Most importantly, disqualified individuals would find it harder (though admittedly not impossible) to obtain guns. Isn’t that what we seek?

So right out of the gate, he proposes a compromise.  Extend the background check to all sales.  Give up person-to-person sales as long as there is an exemption for family gifts.  In other words, universal background checks.  Just don’t call it that – it’ll get everybody on my side riled up.

“Red Flag Laws” are getting a lot of attention, but I prefer the term Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). Something about the words “red flag” reminds me of “red herring.” But there’s a good reason for them. The theory behind this initiative is that people sometimes give us useful signals that they intend to commit violence—whether it’s against themselves or others—and if we act upon those signals by removing their guns we might sometimes prevent tragedies. But gun owners have legitimate fears that the system can be abused to their detriment. In order to amplify the good and minimize the bad, we need to build safeguards against a surveillance state that, in the wake of 9/11, has proved susceptible to overreach. If the process becomes punitive, not salutary, faith in the stated objective is defeated and people loss more respect for the laws and any changes are seen as new retributions to be opposed from the get go. A detailed description of a workable and fair policy can be found in David French’s article “A Gun-Policy Measure Conservatives Should Consider” from National Review of February of last year.

So, let’s put a few things in places to keep the Leviathan state from overreaching and prevent abuses, and we’ll support these confiscatory policies.  David French says so.  And so does he.

Sheesh.  With friends like this, who needs enemies?  Is it any wonder with “Lobbyists” like this, we’ve been compromised almost to the point of no return?

CNN:

Three more National Rifle Association leaders have stepped down, CNN has learned, in a broadening of a leadership exodus amid a controversy over the group’s spending.

Country music singer and NRA board member Craig Morgan has resigned, sources with knowledge of the matter tell CNN, and NASCAR team owner Richard Childress stepped down on Monday. David Lehman, the deputy executive director and general counsel at the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, also is leaving the organization, the sources tell CNN.

Both Morgan and Childress were prominent public faces for the NRA. Morgan appeared frequently on the group’s now-defunct streaming video service NRATV and even hosted his own program on the network. Lehman was the deputy to then executive director Chris Cox, who resigned in June and was also the NRA’s top lobbyist. Lehman was filling the role of top lobbyist when he departed the organization.

NRA President Carolyn Meadows puts a happy face on this, but the defections are beginning to add up, and the “we’re all still bestest friends … really, I promise” resignation statements are becoming almost amusing.  What are we down to now – perhaps only several hundred members of the board left?  How can they function?

The real question issue this: they must be hemorrhaging money by now.  How long do they circle the wagons, and how long does Wayne “ride the tiger?”  Will he kill the tiger, or will it turn around and eat him?

The Washington Post.

President Trump talked Tuesday with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre and assured him that universal background checks were off the table, according to several people familiar with the call.

Trump told LaPierre that the White House remained interested in proposals that would address weapons getting into the hands of the mentally ill, including the possibility of backing so-called “red flag” laws that would allow the police to temporarily confiscate guns from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

Well, I have two brief comments.  First, it remains to be seen what is in a bill or bills that finally do pass and which Trump signs into law.  And you know something will eventually pass and get signed into law.  The problem is always in the details, and very smart people craft the details.

Second, if this is true, that’s good, but not enough.  Rejecting UBC while also signing FedGov red flag laws will leave Trump with this gun control legacy: Bump stock ban, appointment of a second amendment-hater to head the ATF, and FedGov red flag laws.

I wouldn’t want to run for office on that legacy.

Washington Examiner.

Some House Democrats will return early from the summer recess to advance gun control legislation, including a bill banning large ammunition magazines.

The House Judiciary Committee announced a Sept. 4 vote on a group of measures aimed at reducing gun violence.

“For far too long, politicians in Washington have only offered thoughts and prayers in the wake of gun violence tragedies,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said. “Thoughts and prayers have never been enough. To keep our communities safe, we must act.”

The Democratic-led House passed a universal background check bill in February, but the GOP-led Senate has ignored it so far due to a lack of significant Republican support.

House Democrats are nonetheless ready to advance additional gun control measures. Nadler, a Democrat from New York, said he’ll take up a measure that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines which were used in a string of deadly mass shootings this summer.

The committee will vote to advance the measure on Sept. 4 and plans a Sept. 25 hearing on banning “military-style assault weapons,” Nadler said.

Nadler will also hold a Sept. 4 vote on the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would provide grants to encourage states to impose “red flag” laws allowing law enforcement to remove weapons from people who are deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The panel will also consider a measure that would establish procedures for obtaining extreme risk protection orders in federal court.

Finally, lawmakers will vote to advance the Disarm Hate Act, which would block the sale of guns to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime.

UBC, red flag laws, a new AWB, and gun ban for people who have said the wrong thing over social media.  This is a veritable cornucopia of gun control.

Good.  Let’s see just what everybody does now.  It’s upon us, and will continue to be upon us for years to come.  This will be a good time for flushing the communists out of the closet.

Townhall.

All we ask in exchange for Universal Background Checks is this: Stop collecting data about who’s buying what guns.  It’s like HIPPA privacy for gun owners.  A background check doesn’t require a database on gun owners and serial numbers any more than liquor laws require the government to know how often I buy my preferred spirit.

For ten bucks, any seller could phone in a buyer’s driver’s license number to find out whether the buyer’s prohibited from buying a gun (appallingly, the current check system is off limits to responsible private sellers wishing to conduct a check).  The new system could even be used by anyone to check out a babysitter or contractor.  This system would record only that the ID was checked and issued a confirmation number.   The seller can keep the confirmation as a defense to a false charge of selling to an unqualified buyer.  The system knows only that someone was checked but has no idea if they even bought a gun, let alone what model or serial number.

Stop there, and that’s the compromise we usually get: They get most of what they want, and we get nothing.   So here’s the real compromise: even firearms dealers will no longer have to keep a record (known as Form 4473) of who bought what – those eventually end up in government hands for databasing.  The dealer verifies his customer by ID, (just like a liquor retailer who cards a customer) but gun purchases are private.

Win-win.  We win our tyranny insurance, and they win the public safety they swear is their goal.  But their opposition to this type of genuine compromise belies their true goal of political control that requires their opponents to be disarmed.

Cue the crickets.

It’s difficult to tell from the rest of the commentary whether the author is playing a thought-game or he’s serious that he’d accept UBC with those stipulations.

But don’t speak for me.  I don’t accept UBC under any conditions.  That means any conditions.

News from Virginia.

NORFOLK, Va. – The Norfolk Police Department is looking for two people who impersonated police and forced their way into a Norfolk home.

It happened in April in the 3300 block of Illinois Avenue.

The two victims inside the home heard a knock at the door, someone yelled, “Police!” and moments later the door was kicked in, according to court records.

Records state the two suspects entered the house wearing ski masks armed with handguns.

And as we’ve documented, this isn’t the only time this sort of thing has happened.  Criminals know that modern American police tactics involve expecting you to submit by laying on the floor and begging for mercy as flash-bangs are thrown into the home, children are endangered, and men and women are cursed at and threatened.

Because.  All police deserve to “git some” and go home safely at the end of their shift.

So, a quick note to the LEOs and former LEOs reading this: you understand why we can’t do that, right?  Tell me you’re not so stupid that you don’t understand why we can’t do that?

Via David Codrea, I already knew this but it bears repeating.

The CFR and other illegal immigration supporting groups have made it clear that open-borders, global and regional governance over America, Amnesty for illegals, and full gun confiscation are their top agenda items.

I’ve told y’all about the CFR before.  Beware an organization like this one.

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

I’ve mentioned the CFR when discussing child trafficking, precious gems, precious metals, oil pipelines, various military contractors, etc.  Members of the CFR include employees at the U.S. Department of State, Saudi oil tycoons, U.S. journalists, high ranking members of the U.S. military or former military (Petraeus, McMaster, etc.), former VPs (Dick Cheney), owners of large businesses in the military industrial complex, and on the list could go.  It’s the closest thing to a public face on the “deep state” as you’ll find.

They all want the same thing for you and yours.

NY Daily News.

An assault weapons ban that Democratic leaders have been reluctant to advance despite strong support among their rank-and-file members in the House just got its first Republican backer — Long Island Rep. Pete King.

You’re a liar, because you want LEOs to have whatever they want.  So you do see a need, not just a need for commoners to have what the rulers have.