Dave Hardy went to the Clinton Archives to look for gun control records. Last month he reported some staggering information:
A fax from Jody Powell, President Jimmy Carter’s press secretary, to George Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s new press secretary, warning Clinton to back off from gun control because … it just doesn’t work.
We have yet to propose anything that people think will make any difference. The people who are generally for gun control don’t make it a voting issue because it has no real impact on their lives. On the other hand, the inconvenience and hassle of wading through another round with indifferent and incompetent bureaucrats and the fear that this is only the first step toward more radical measures are quite real to people who own guns.”
Then came the real bombshell:
“Much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control measures inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime and criminals.”
This month he reports on the Brady Campaign wish list:
The Brady Campaign has long claimed that its agenda is limited. Just some “reasonable, common-sense” gun restrictions—no need for anyone to worry about confiscation or onerous regulations.
The White House files were filled with Brady Campaign/Handgun Control Inc.’s legislative plans. A memo stamped “confidential—do not circulate” (with the label set out by images of skulls and crossbones) outlined Brady’s real agenda.
It began with a list of what Brady wanted from the Clinton administration. The list was long, but mostly quite predictable: licensing requirements and registration for handgun ownership, a ban on “assault rifles,” “one-gun-a-month,” a seven-day waiting period, and stiff increases in fees (to $1,000 per year) for FFLs.
Even that would not be enough to please the Brady Campaign, though. Its memo added some proposals that (until now) have never seen the light of day.
Brady also asked for a federal requirement of a special “arsenal license” for any gun owner who possessed 20 guns or 1,000 rounds of ammunition. (The White House copy has a handwritten note: “all guns.”) The memo described the arsenal license’s requirements as “similar to the requirements for a machine gun license,” including the requirement for police approval, since “anyone who has an arsenal is a danger to society.” In this scenario, two bricks of .22s would be enough for a gun owner to be treated as a public menace.
Brady also asked that each component of a handgun, including the “barrel, stock, receiver, any part of the action, or ammunition magazines” be treated as if they were the receiver. “Buyers would need a license, sellers would need an FFL, and interstate sales would be illegal,” Brady explained. Replacing the grips or a firing pin spring, or purchasing an extra magazine, would actually require a 4473. Apparently they consider handguns to be that dangerous!
Incredibly, Brady also wanted a ban on manufacturing magazines that held more than six rounds, and a requirement that transfers of used seven-round and larger magazines have law enforcement approval. Essentially, nearly every magazine in the United States, apart from those for some pocket guns and deer rifles, would be banned if new, or tightly restricted if already in existence.
It’s all just common sense… if your goal is to eliminate the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Here is a November 29, 2015 picture of Brady Center president Dan Gross (left) and New York Governor (and New York SAFE Act author) Andrew Cuomo (right) as they present Hillary Clinton with the Mario M. Cuomo Visionary Award for her leadership on gun control:
If Hillary wins the November election the supreme court candidates she picks will neuter the Second Amendment.
Well then we’re screwed as Hilary has already been pre selected by the media to be the next president. It was decided in 2008.
But it didn’t work. It may not work this year either.
Then again, Bernie is not exactly an improvement. And it looks like the Republicans are aiming to nominate the one candidate who loses against all Democrats.
Btw, at that very Gala, the only other anti-gun heavy there was Chuck Schumer. …who lives in town.
They couldn’t even get any activists from Connecticut or New Jersey.
Their cause is dying.
You know, I think there should be a special “arsenal” license. I think it should be for collectors of rare/exotic/historic weapons that they purchase as investments without plans to use and should be for those who have collections valued over X$$.. It should be valid across the entire USA, even in states like California that have strict gun control. It should be linked to a “fine arts” insurance policy insuring the entire collection from theft, damage, etc.
To what purpose? Is there a special permit for enthusiasts that buy expensive bottles of wine as investments that they have no intention to drink? Is there a special permit for people who buy vintage/rare/exotic/historic automobiles with no intention to drive them? What of stamp collectors, or coin collectors? They buy rare/exotic/historic examples and they surely have no intention to use them. Should they need a permit to do so, or is this a reflexive “knee-jerk” from someone who sees a process in dire need of permits merely for the sake of permits?
Are the people who buy rare/exotic/historic weapons such a problem that they should require extra scrutiny and should they have to jump through extra hoops in order to make their investments? Or is this merely a taxing scheme on those with extra money to spend who also happen to invest in something that you find icky?
Since you mention it, yes there are “special permits for people who buy vintage/rare/exotic/historic automobiles with no intention to drive them?”
I don’t like to see historic items banned and destroyed. That’s why I’d like to see a special weapons permit. If Christies can sell it (which means it’s an investment), everyone ought to be able to buy it, regardless what state they live in. .
I agree with your last sentence. But there is more than one solution to this issue. The more appropriate solution is to eliminate the laws that make it illegal to own such firearms.
Unfortunately, what makes them valuable in the first place (a lot of times) is that they are banned. Without a ban in place, you get tons of cheap knock-offs.
Among the items I hate seeing banned are things like the antique canes with the hidden weapons.
“I don’t like to see historic items banned and destroyed. That’s why I’d like to see a special weapons permit.”
If that truly is the goal, why the need for the special permit at all? Why not argue that the whole process that makes such permitting necessary in the first place is the problem and that it is this process that needs to be undone. Then collectors anywhere could buy the historic firearms, and as added bonus, there would be less government restriction.
(Edited to add: Joe beat me to it by about 5 minutes)
The better answer is to implement the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) which clearly says that no one — neither state nor fed — has the authority to infringe the keeping and bearing of arms. This was true before the 14th amendment, and that amendment made the point explicit to deal with those who denied the natural rights of the citizens.
No you don’t.