Gun Grabbers?

Well, I know some thought Obama was going to lead a crew of "Gun Grabbers’ but it seems so far it is the Trump Administration:

Mind you, in the past the ATF was supposed to do this, but the Administration put no priority on it then.

Did you read the article?

However, it can’t be said to be blamed on Obama as the purchasers failed the background check.
Blame whoever mandated a 72 hour limit before allowing the sale.

IF IN FACT this was under the direction of the Trump administration then they should be commended.

I know it cant be blamed on Obama. And yes, the fact that they failed the check does indicate a problem.
But the Trump admin has made these confiscations a high priority, while the Obama admin did not, so there were few “guns grabbed” during Obamas admin for this issue.

There is the point that Obama indeed want to “grab people’s guns”, it’s just that he lacked the congressional support to implement it. He was open about a new assault weapons ban even before his second term as well as policies which would have banned certain types of ammo.

The Green tip ammo? Yes, the ATF wanted to ban it, but was Obama openly in favor?

Yep, after a mass shooting the Public outcry was for “something to be done” and Obama did mention that the assault weapons ban could come back.

Trump was also in favor os such a ban.

Obama was saying that pre-Sandy Hook when all the “big” shootings were still mainly pistol and shotgun based though. If he had gotten his way we would have seen a renewed assault weapons ban in his first term.

And been the better for it.

Well, first off, a “gun grabber,” in the parlance of the people most likely to use the term, is a pro-control type, likely to be an ardent pro-control type, a “ban 'em all, and confiscate them NOW!” kind of pro-control advocate.

I’m sure that somewhere on the pro-gun side, there’s someone who would apply the term to even law enforcement, in the conduct their duties, but you can always find an outlier in any group of people.

Having said all that, NICS was set up to provide an information “clearing house” for every dealer/law enforcement type everywhere, to provide the most, best, timely & accurate info on excluded persons prohibited from purchasing firearms.

And to provide law enforcement timely info on said prohibited person “hits” so that they could act on them.

That someone is now acting on the prohibited purchaser “hits” coming back from gun dealers/gun shows/etc. is good, in a “better late than never” kind of thing. It’s exactly what lots of pro-gun people have asked for since the earliest days of the gun-control argument: enforce the laws we already have on the books before reaching for more controls/new legislation.

The 72-hour clock on NICS checks was a safeguard inserted into the system to help protect lawful purchasers from having their rights abridged by a pro-control politician abusing the system to backdoor an agenda, by defunding NICS, or “overhauling the system” and taking it down for weeks, months at a time under the guise of “upgrades,” or “maintenance.”

So law enforcement authorities (finally!) acting on prohibited purchaser hits isn’t some new feature, or even all that revelatory; it’s not “gun grabbing,” taking firearms or rights away from lawful purchasers and owners.

It’s not even NICS doing what it was originally envisioned to do.

It’s law enforcement doing its half of the workload, using NICS as the tool it was designed to be.

This is, from this gun owner’s and 2nd. Amendment supporter’s viewpoint, a good thing.

It would be better if all law enforcement agencies everywhere subscribed to NICS, and if all federal and state agencies provided NICS with accurate information and updates in a timely manner.

Like, say, if a certain Air Force Personnel Officer had forwarded the info on one Devin Patrick Kelley (upon his Bad Conduct Discharge from the U.S. Air Force) to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, like he was supposed to do.

Then the info would have been available to NICS, to deny Kelley’s attempts to purchase firearms before he shot up a church full of people.

Hell, depending upon the timeliness of the “follow up” by law enforcement after Kelley’s NICS denial, someone might have caught the bastard before he had a chance to maybe acquire firearms by other, less-than-legal means.

If you’re talking about grabbing the guns of 4,000 people, that would be one gun owner in 50,000. If only that many people have fallen through the cracks, you have come about as close to zero tolerance as would be practical without a horrible waste of diligent surveillance way beyond the law of diminishing returns.

Good point; I’m curious to know over what time frame these 4,000 no-sell-hits were accumulated. Weeks? Months? Years?

Actually, now that I think about it some, I’m now wondering something else:

Did the Air Force Base Provost Marshal (U.S. Army term; not sure of the Air Force equivalent) take any steps to ensure Kelley had no firearms in his ownership/possession after his court martial, but before his actual Bad Conduct Discharge?

Seconded. And in a way, very Republican. Getting guns away from the folks who shouldn’t have them while leaving the average citizen alone. How to fix the background checks we can debate but correcting errors once they are found sounds basic common sense to me.

If they rename the Washington Redskins the Washington Gun-Grabbers, fans will buy their expensive merchandise by the truckload, just so they can burn it in protest.


Yeah but it isn’t like some folks don’t hate the Redskins name already. If you really want to boost sales, pick a team with a neutral name and a lame track record. :wink: