Remembering the first real Federal push for gun control

Franklin D. Roosevelt was responsible for this push:

Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.   

Congress watered down FDR’s bill because of concerns about maintaining the right of people in rural communities, where there was little police presence, to have handguns for protection. . . .

Illinois House fails to get supermajority to pass concealed handgun law

"May Issue" law receives only 31 votes compared to the "right to carry" law that received 64 votes.  Unfortunately, a supermajority was required of 71 votes to pass.

Presumably this means that the State Attorney General will try appealing the Circuit Court decision that struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carry.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Gun rights advocates fell silent in the Illinois House on Thursday night after falling seven votes short of approving the public possession of firearms statewide despite a federal court order that gives legislators just weeks to put such a law on the books. 

The proposal creating a method to permit qualified gun owners to carry concealed weapons failed 64-45. The measure needed a supermajority of 71 votes because the legislation would trump the right of the state's larger cities to set up their own laws. 

For the second time in as many days, a House vote on concealed carry demonstrated the chasm between gun rights advocates and those who want tighter restrictions on them. . . . 

Called a "may issue" concealed-carry law, Cassidy's measure was modeled on the New York law that survived a potential challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. It received only 31 votes. That's far fewer than those willing to support Phelps on his "shall issue" proposal, which would allow anyone who meets the training and background check requirements to carry. . . . 

Thanks to Tony Troglio for the link.

Interview on Sun News about Senate defeat of gun control bill

Even Politico notes the extreme bias in the media over the background checks

Bill Kristol is hardly a conservative on the gun issue, and even he thinks that the bias has been quite strong.  From Politico:

. . . Even by the standards of today’s partisan media environment, the response has been noteworthy. Television hosts, editorial boards, and even some reporters have aggressively criticized and shamed the 46 Senators who opposed the plan, while some have even taken to actively soliciting the public to contact them directly. 

The decision by some members of the media to come down so firmly on one side of a policy debate has only served to reinforce conservatives’ longstanding suspicions that the mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias. 

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO. 

”It’s clearly biased and unmistakably ideological,” said John Podhoretz, the conservative New York Post columnist. “These outlets can do what they do want, but nobody should kid themselves about what they’re doing.” . . .

I have noted this for a long time with the cheerleading by the media on the bogus claim that 40% of gun sales are done with out background checks (see others discuss it here).

Newest Fox News piece: "Who is really lying in the gun debate?"

I would have titled this differently, something like: What Obama could have done if he really wanted to pass the gun control law.  My newest Fox News piece starts this way:

After failing to get his gun control bill passed by the Senate Wednesday, President Obama lashed out at his usual favorite targets, "the gun lobby" and Republicans.  

He claimed "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill." He scolded "senators [who] could not offer any good reason" to oppose the legislation. And sharing the stage with some of the heartbroken families from Newtown, Connecticut, he attacked Republicans as being unwilling to "protect the lives of all our children." 

But who is really lying in the gun debate? Mr. Obama's case in favor of background checks rests on two false claims that he keeps repeating: “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” and that "background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” . . .

In contrast to what I argue in my piece, Democrats are claiming that they tried everything.  Possibly everything politically, but not everything in terms of actual policy.  From Politico:

David Axelrod, sounding shell-shocked by the decisiveness of the Senate defeat on gun reform, said Obama is indeed frustrated by the constraints that bind him and knows that’s what he signed up for. “On this one, he tried everything,” Axelrod said. “It’s easy after a stinging defeat like this to say: ‘There’s no formula.’ But what you can’t do is take your bat and ball and go home.” . . . 

New Philadelphia Inquirer piece: "The problems of gun checks"

My new piece from yesterday started this way:

Everyone wants to keep criminals from getting guns. However, expanded background checks are not the simple answer that Sens. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) think they are. 

Unfortunately, as the Senate considers the Manchin-Toomey amendment, Toomey is simply wrong to assert: "It's the people who fail a criminal or mental-health background check who we don't want having guns." 

Toomey apparently does not understand how the background-check system works. Take his claim on Sunday: "Since checks began in 1998, more than 100,000 people who are ineligible to own guns have been denied them each year." Just because someone is "initially denied" permission to buy a gun doesn't mean that he is really ineligible to own guns. . . .

Talk at 12:15 today at the University of Akron Law School

For those interested, I will be talking about gun control today at 12:15 at the University of Akron Law School.

More on Democrats now criticizing Obamacare

From The Hill newspaper:

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," [Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) ] told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Wednesday hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet." . . .
"Small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect," Baucus said.
Citing anecdotal evidence from small businesses in his home state, Baucus asked Sebelius for specifics about how it is measuring public understanding of the law.
"You need data. Do you have any data? You've never given me data. You only give me concepts, frankly," he said. . . . 

Jon Stewart Show makes fun of my concern that government taxes are preventing poor people from owning guns for protection

The brief video segment can be seen here.  The rest of my discussion was cut where I explain that those who are most likely to be victims of violent crime need guns for defensive uses the most.

Decorated war veteran arrested for "rudely displaying" (carrying) guns while on walk for protection

From Todd Starnes at Fox News:

Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham told Fox News he was illegally disarmed by members of the Temple Police Dept. – even though he held the proper permits to carry his weapons.Grisham and his son were on a 10-mile hike in a rural area populated by wild boars and cougars. He was carrying an AR-15 rifle and a .45 caliber pistol.
He was charged with resisting arrest – even though video his son filmed of the incident clearly showed that Grisham did not resist arrest. Police later reduced the charges to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty – a class B misdemeanor.
“I’m still frankly and honestly 100 percent confused about what I’m being charged with,” Grisham said.
Temple Police told local media that the Fort Hood soldier refused to hand of his weapon – leading to his arrest. However, the video shows that Grisham complied with their demands.
One of the officers told Grisham that anyone holding a gun is considered dangerous, according to a 15-minute video obtained by Fox News. . . . .