“There are three kinds of falsehoods: Lies, damned lies and statistics” —Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour
Clearly, we have a problem when legislators continue to find ways to incrementally chip away at our second amendment rights. But this bill is just a bit more insidious than what folks saw here today.
HB 1589 “requiring background checks for all firearm sales,” is a rather deceptive title because not only does it seek to wrest control of private firearms sales, but transfers that are made without money being exchanged. The second aspect of the bill is that it provides the basis where shooting on privately owned lands may be curtailed. Finally, the bill begins with legislative findings that are chapter and verse from talking points used ad nauseum by the Bloomberg and Brady Campaigns.
Line 5, page 1 states, “it has been estimated that 40 percent of all firearms are sold in the United States by unlicensed people.” Professor John Lott wrote over a year ago in National Review the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. All the claims come right out of the Bloomberg and Brady camps.
These are the same claims made by Michael Bloomberg’s No More Names Bus tour that shamelessly named Tamerlin Tzarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber, a “victim of gun violence;” Lamont Wallace who was cut down by a Police Officer when he took a child hostage with a knife, a, “victim of gun violence;” and, James Jones, who open fired on a State trooper, just to name a few. Inflating thenumbers where these people included terrorists, thugs and hardcore criminals in the same standing with innocent victims of crazy people using guns is making up their truth out of whole cloth. A half-truth is a whole lie.
This bill required a transfer for those who lend guns to others. So if my Pal Peter wants to borrow my rifle for a hunting trip, I would need to do a transfer in order to comply with this law. This bill carves out certain exceptions…yeah, not so much. Instead it deceptively creates a prohibition on people shooting guns on their own private property.
Page 4, Line 23 reads,
VII. The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses; (ii) for the purposes of immediate self-defense provided the transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary;
(iii) that occurs at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located, provided the firearm is kept at such range during the entirety of the transfer…
Think about how this operates through this example. Let us say I own 100 acres of land and upon that land there is a place that is suitable and safe to shoot firearms. So I invite some friends over and we go shooting. Meanwhile, my neighbor calls the police because the gunfire is scaring her cats. The police arrive to find my friends holding my guns on my land. But! the law now states, at an established shooting range authorized by town government. Theoretically, I would have made an illegal transfer because there is a question of law whether or not my land meets the definition of, an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located…Violations of this law, if enacted would be a class B Felony.
Lastly, is the most obvious example. The Moonbat Druid State Rep, E. Elaine Andrews-Ahearn, drinking the anti-gun Kool-Aid with Senator David Pierce, readily concede this bill, were it law, would have done nothing to stop Adam lanza, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner. Two parents of children lost to the Newtown Mass shooting were brought in to add crescendo to the emotional component. Connecticut was given the high rating of 5 by the Brady Campaign for its stringent gun laws prior to the Newtown Mass Shooting.
More lies were told in support of this bill than in a two-hour congressional cocktail party. Letting this bill become law is not only a bad bill, but a corrupt bargain because of its deceptive nature, its unspoken restrictions and the investment of charlatanry and manipulation brokered for its advocacy. Indeed, a corrupt bargain.