A More Detailed Review of Toomey’s Press Release

Press Release found here….


“Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.”


  • We don’t want criminals or violently mentally ill having firearm access.
  • Penalties for misuse or illegal retention of firearm records. This is good, because it has been done and has been abused.  Stiff penalties would be an improvement.


  • NICS records could be used to form a de facto registry, it’s been done.
  • Are their assurances for removal of name from NICS if mental illness is no longer a factor. The loss of a loved one, a divorce, etc, could lead one to be prescribed Zoloft and other meds. That should not cause one to permanently lose their rights. Nor should military returning from wars lose rights due to PTSD.



Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.

  • Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
  • Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
  • Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
  • Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.”


  • We want such criminal and violent mental health records reported. And this has not been happening. Which is a problem…
  • Allowing dealers to background check prospective employees I do not have a problem with.
  • Provides veterans for ability to contest NICS placement, very much support.


  • Encourage does not mean enforce mandate. Which means individuals like the Aurora shooter will keep falling through the cracks and be used to attack law abiding gun rights.
  • Veterans should not be the only citizens to have a right to contest NICS placement.


“Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

– Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.

BAD: Senator Toomey why are you using anti-gun terminology. There is no gun show loophole. Every Federally licensed dealer must process background checks. And most dealers at gun shows are licensed and do so.  A few folk walk around selling/trading an old rifle or two they’ve inherited from the death of a family member. But that’s usually it.


– Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

GOOD: This is a major problem. The fact that merely traveling, stopping in your travels during a long journey for food or rest, or a vehicle malfunction can lead to an arrest in strict gun control states is unacceptable and has been abused.  If any gun laws are passed, this is a necessity.


– Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.

GOOD: I presume this expands the protection to dealers, to sellers IF they use the NICS system. I actually think this proposition, combined with “FREE” NICS checks for private sellers would eliminate most of the problem.


– Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.

– Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

GOOD:  If we’re having universal background checks ramrodded down our throats. Then we should be able to purchase both long guns and hand guns in ANY state, so long as we go through a NICS check and the firearm is legal in our state of residency.


– Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.

– Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.

GOOD: We had an entire gun show be cancelled because the Pennsylvania PICS system went down for maintenance for 7 days. Imagine if the DMV upgraded its computers, so you couldn’t buy a car for a week. People, especially car dealers, would say that was insane.


– Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

GOOD: I’ve long advocated that this should be a valid alternative to background checks.


– Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.

MIXED: Anyone should be able to buy a firearm from any state if they go through the NICS process.


– Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks”

COMPROMISE: This is a total compromise. But would we be willing to give up some private sales so long as we can retain friends & family, in exchange for the other protections. Maybe…but ONLY if we got all those other improvements.



Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.”

TOLERABLE: Theater for political charades, not likely to accomplish anything nor come out in our favor. But not really binding in any way. So I can tolerate it.



The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.

The bill will not ban any type of firearm.

The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.

The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.

The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”

IT BETTER NOT: If we gained all the above protections, improvements and expansions while retaining the right to sell to family, friends, and neighbors. Then I might be willing to compromise. I’d still like to see a few additions.  But if WE DO NOT get those things, then no way in hell. I’m sick and tired of one way compromises.

 I’d love to see a National Reciprocity Stamp, that one could get on their carry permits that would mandate recognition between the states much as a driver’s license is recognized.

In the end, the above, if true, would not be so bad a compromise. But I believe Senator Toomey royally blew it by his silence. When we know you’re dealing with the enemy, and you give us no input or guidance, that’s not good.  His office should have said that Senator Toomey has been meeting with his fellow senators addressing a number of places where current laws fail the “common sense” test and endeavoring to protect law abiding citizens when for example, their vehicle breaks down while traveling through a gun  unfriendly state.  And pointing out how poor wording could easily turn law abiding gun owners into felons. Senator Toomey has addressed a number of his fellow Senators reminding them that a compromise is a two way streak.

If he said something to that affect, I think there’d have been far less backlash.

7+1 Questions About Mandatory Gun Insurance

Article over at Yahoo discussing mandatory gun insurance. Details 7 points, and pretty much concludes  that it’s not likely to happen.


Let me go for 7+1,…

I used to live in New Haven, CT.  Due to my zip code alone, my auto insurance quotes were $2,200-$3,500 a year. Now, that might seem reasonable, if I had had an accident in the last 10 years, or even if I had a single moving traffic violation – but I had neither. (And that was mostly for the basic mandatory collision insurance.)

What was the reason? Well, usually it was touted higher “theft” in that area. But I commented, I wasn’t asking for theft insurance, just liability.  Then they’d balk a little.  Let me tell you what I believe the real reason was. My zip code was attached to a neighborhood that was considered one of the three worst in the city. It was largely a minority neighborhood.   Yes, I truly believe that the sole reason my rates were exceedingly high was because of living in a zip code associated with a certain racial profile. Sure, the insurance companies say it was only based on zip code.  But I believe racial demographics were playing a huge part. ( I’d late move out of that zip code and pay less than a thousand dollars.)

So why do I mention this? Because the “+1” fact is that I believe the same scenario will play out with firearm insurance. If you live in rural Pennsylvania, you might have to pay a $150/year for your gunsurance.  If you happen to live in a neighborhood, or even close to one, in which there is a high level of crime and lots of minorities, rest assured those insurance companies will deny race is at play. But the expect your gunsurance to be $500/year…or more. Thus putting gun ownership outside of the means of many poor and minorities.

Don’t believe me? It’s not the first time this has been done? Read up on the racist roots of gun control…



Published in: on March 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Decline of gun control support

Interesting article on Yahoo about gun control’s support decline, even in light of recent shootings.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.


Why do I think this decline of support is occurring?

  1. First, because more and more Americans are becoming comfortable with, and owners of firearms.
  2. Second, because more and more Americans realize that gun control laws do not prevent crimes. They only make criminals of decent folk.



Published in: on July 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm  Leave a Comment  

How to write for Brady/CGSV

Should we just not do anything?

How long are we going to ignore this problem? This is untolerable. A travesty and a tragedy. Will we continue to tolerate guns in the hands of teenagers.

Will we let the gun lobby continue their death spree. How many more people have to die at the hands of teenagers with guns.

On January 4th, in North Carolina, Michael Henderson was shot and killed by a 14 year old wielding a gun. What did Michael do to deserve this. The teenager claims he was in the wrong neighborhood, more specifically, the wrong house. And just for that, he shot Michael Henderson dead. Michael Henderson’s three friends ran away terrified for their lives. For all we know Mr. Henderson just entered the house to borrow a cup of milk. Even if he borrowed a few other items from the home; is that any reason to shoot him dead? The disturbed 14 year old just assumed he was in the house to rob, steal or rape his sister. He has no proof.

If that isn’t bad enough. In Oklahoma, Justin Martin was killed by a gun wielding teenager – Sarah McKinley. The 18 year old McKinley was clearly mentally disturbed by the recent loss of a family member to cancer on Christmas day.

Justin Martin, a neighbor, came to visit and see how she was doing. He found all the doors locked and barricaded. Concerned he tried to enter the home and make sure she was okay. No sooner had he entered than 18 year old Sarah took his life. A very shaken up Dustin Stewart can be heard on a 9-1-1 call exclaiming that his friend Justin had just been shot and murdered. When police arrived on the scene they found Sarah to have a stockpile of firearms and ammo – including a 12 gauge shotgun and a pistol.

We need our legislators to pass laws that protect us from such gun wieldly teenagers. These unprecedented killings should not, cannot be tolerated anymore. The inaction of our legislators to pass stricter gun control laws is shameful. We must press them to pass new, stricter, legislation. We ask call your representative and voice your support for the “Keeping CRAP (Criminal Rapist Alive Protection) Act”

The above goes to show just how much presentation and tainting of facts can change the perception of actual events and twist the truth. While the above is full of much hyberbole, distortion of facts, the actual events were based on two recent incidents of self-defense against home invasions. While in each case a man was killed by a gun wielding teenager, the teenager was in fact the victim defending themselves against a criminal element.

The 2nd Amendment often finds itself maligned by articles filled with falsities, half truths, and outright lies (ie: high powered assault weapon – the .223 round used by AR rifles is in fact woefully small compared to most hunting calibers. In fact, in Pennsylvania it is considered to weak a cartridge to use in deer hunting.)

It is frustrating to see articles which simply regurgitate press feeds from CSGV or the Brady Campaign, which are filled with inaccuracies and lies. For years, these gun control groups have had the media’s ear with little to no counterpoint or rebuttal ever being published. But we’re making progress in both the public perception and the media (as Sebastian’s recent article on NPR coverage of the Glock shows)

CT considering micro-stamping law…

Connecticut is considering the following microstamping bill proposed by Connecticut State Senator Looney (yes, that’s his real name)

If you live, work in, or own property in Connecticut. Please write your legislators and your governor.



House of Reps


List of Judiciary email addresses:


Below is the letter I sent, as I own property in Connecticut, for reference; though it alludes to a few personal events of significance. :

SB 353

I am writing you concerning the proposed bill number 353. This bill proposes mandating microstamping as a requirement of the sale of all semi-automatic pistols after 2011.

It is my expectation that you will veto this bill were it to come to your desk. 

First off, this legislation is just foolish. As it will not accomplish any of the goals stated by it’s proponents to reduce crime.

Most people take less than 30 seconds to figure out how to by-pass this whole scheme.  They’d just file off the micro-stamping.  Easily done. And this is exactly what criminals will do.

And why is this applied only to semi-automatics, when revolvers are the most commonly used firearm by criminals?

All this bill will do, is make it all the more difficult for law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves and their familes.  In direct violation of the protected rights outlayed both in the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions

“SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

As someone who on the three occasions he felt the need to call 911. Received zero response from the New Haven police department. Considers impeding in any way my right to defend myself as both reprehensible and morally wrong.

It is my expectation that if this bill were to come up for a vote that you would vote it down.