Motives Behind ‘Model Gun Background Check System’ Go Beyond ‘Commonsense Safety’

Well, as long as Everytown recommends it, it must be OK. Right? (NBC News/YouTube screenshot)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “As federal lawmakers seek to improve record reporting to the federal background check system after a Texas massacre highlighted the risks of missing records, Pennsylvania offers a potential roadmap,” NBC News “reports” in a scarcely-disguised advocacy piece. “The state has spent the last six years aggressively overhauling records reporting, hunting down reporting gaps like the one that let [Donald Meyer Jr.] buy a gun and modernizing the technology they use to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

“Gunner's Guru” Jeff Cooper (Wikipedia)

But Meyer’s not the one who killed his 12-year-old daughter. A law enforcement officer did, his bullet going through Meyer’s arm and killing the girl. Without second-guessing Constable Clark Steele’s decision to fire his weapon at an alleged armed threat resisting an eviction notice, Jeff Cooper’s basic rule to “Always be sure of your target” (including what is behind it) seems not to have influenced that outcome.

What would have, at least according to the gun-grabbers, would be requiring even more names to be reported into a “prohibited persons” database. Everywhere. In Everytown. Case in point:

“The PICS system is strong — it’s a model for this country. Every state should strive to do as well in record reporting as they do,” said William Rosen, the deputy legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that advocates stricter gun control.

So much for the “home rule” argument the gun-grabbers drag out every time something with the potential to reduce infringements is proposed.

Shall Not Be Infringed
Still waiting for an answer…

Putting aside (but only for a moment) very real concerns about delegated Constitutional authority, prior restraint infringements, denial of full due process, unjust punishments for minor squabbles, “professionally” biased mental health dragnets, false positives, and the disconnect between millions of attempts to break “the law” with only a handful of prosecutions and convictions, there’s one other real world reality being ignored: Allowing free access to society for anyone who is a proven (beyond a reasonable doubt!) danger to others guarantees those others will be at increased risk. Simply put, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

You can see it for yourself in a place where the Everytown-lauded “model for this country” is in full effect: Philadelphia homicides are up 14%.

So obviously, if PICS can’t do the job on its own, those backing “gun control” will need to impose further restrictions. And when those fail to work, demands will be made for more.

Here’s what’s really going on per parties with a disarmament dog in the fight:

    • The National Institute of Justice “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” concluded “Effectiveness [of ‘Universal Background Checks’] depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”
    • Sen. Chris Murphy referred to current “Fix NICS” efforts as “baby steps” that could end up being a “breakthrough piece of legislation.” Once that beachhead has been secured (and not just without a fight, but with the full cooperation and approval of ostensible “gun rights leaders”), the gun-grabbers can move on to their next objective, and the next…
    • Slippery slope” paranoia…? Not according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who not only admitted that was the plan, but added “I certainly hope so.”
    • And what’s at the bottom of that slippery slope?  Again, accusations of paranoia and ridiculing assurances that “No one wants to take your guns” aside, prominent cheerleaders for citizen disarmament have let their intentions be known, declaring “existing laws” are not enough, the Second Amendment should be repealed, and the ultimate answer is confiscation.

If they could control all the guns (and of course they can't), no one thinks it would end there, do they?


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 49 thoughts on “Motives Behind ‘Model Gun Background Check System’ Go Beyond ‘Commonsense Safety’

    1. The ultimate objective of the “Gun Grabbers” is to Grab your Guns! All this “smoke and Mirrors about bump stocks, magazine capacity, etc. is incrementalism, to eventually ban and confiscate firearms from the general population. The sooner we wake up to that and begin fighting it the better.

    2. “What works in Wyoming does not work in Manhattan.” – Gun banner and Waco apologist Chuck Schumer arguing against national conceal carry laws.

    3. @David Codrea, Well, I can see by certain responses that you may want to consider using more simple declarative sentences. Perhaps using fewer pronouns. And if you will allow me to suggest that you might use, for some readers, crayons.
      I still greatly enjoy your column in “Guns” magazine.

    4. Its for citizens…we are not citizens..thier rules,laws,orders, legislative actions,codes, statutes…all are for US CITIZENS or Citizens of THE UNITED STATES.( INC).. all you ex military..read your DD214..you were relieved of the citizenship which you agreed to while you served ( The CORPORATION)… Its a hard and bitter pill to swallow.Try wrapping your heads around it…it changes everything !

    5. David, your article is on the money as far as it goes. The PICS system is a disaster and as the chief opponent of this organized crime of a bureaucracy here in PA I must say there are volumes that has been avoided by NBC and blithely covered up by Major Price.
      The room does not exist here to list the hundreds of pages of testimony my organization (Firearms Owners Against Crime) has submitted to the House and Senate Judiciary committees and various legislators!! Currently we have two bills filed (one in the House – HB 763 and one in the Senate – SB 224) to eliminate the PA PICS system with the House bill having nearly 80 co-sponsors and the Senate bill nearly 1/4th of the Senate as co-sponsors.
      It is my considered opinion that the PA State Police and Major Scott Price are reaching out to the media to build a public relations coup to avoid the focus of ethical, moral and criminal mistakes this system makes on a daily or even hourly basis and that is only when it actually does work! After 20 years of operation and 140 MILLION Dollars+ of tax payer money citizens deserve better!!!!

    6. David, good article. It points out, if you consider the underlying factor, that the system is not doing it’s job because it depends on people to do their job. From the local government offices all the way to the federals there is a lack of compliance with job performance and these workers think they control us rather than the other way around. So we have another government office that is not very effective except for gobbling up our tax dollars.

      1. So we have another government office that is not very effective except for gobbling up our tax dollars.

        WHen one consider that nearly ALL government entities, particularly at the FedGov level, have NO authority to exist OR do that with which they are charged, gobbling up tax dollars is the default raison d’etre for them all.

        Consider, first, the BATF. NOT ONE of their alledged areas of authority, each represented by the letters from which their name is derived, have anytning todo with any sort of authority granted FedGov, in fact, since not specifically assigned FedGov, ALL of those issues, alcohol, tobacco, and friearms, are prohibited FedGov and remain the bailiwick of the several states, and/or the PEOPLE.

    7. Clear as mud. Another of your convoluted articles, David. Too much ‘in the know’ information left out. Maybe running your column through Grammarly.com will help.

      1. Hmmm… the text was well written, easily followed, annotated and referenced, and carries an easily understood message. But then, I was not educated in the typical government funded indoctrination and dummification system.

        If you are not yet “in the know”, perhaps a bit of application to the present subject matter would better equip you to better utilise such articles.

        1. I stand by my comment. When I have to reread a sentence or two a couple of times to figure out what is meant, the writing is poor. When I have to follow a link to a wack job liberal web site, the ‘in the know’ concept is at play. Sometimes, David gets caught up in his emotion and does not stop to make his writing readable. It is a common mistake.

            1. Idadho is a mental midget. He picks apart every article as being too confusing or technical. He does it to Codrea, Searson, Ayoob etc.

              My gues is he is still reading coloring books.

            2. I do not pick on every column David writes. David writes many good and well thought out columns. Occasionally, he gets so caught up in his details that he forgets we cannot read his mind.. What is the ‘home rule’ argument?
              What is the ‘ “Everytown-lauded“ model for this country’?
              Who is ‘anyone’? [Allowing free access to society for anyone who is a proven (beyond a reasonable doubt!) danger to others guarantees those others will be at increased risk.] What does this sentence even mean?
              He obviously did not proof his writing when he wrote “What would have, at least according to the gun-grabbers, would be requiring even more names to be reported into a “prohibited persons” database.” A bit of verbal gymnastics, maybe…
              The only way to make sense of the whole column is to accept that we already agree and when something is confusong, it does not matter because we agree.

            3. I have never even commented on a Searson or Ayoob article. I know who Ayoob is but have no idea who Searson is. Where do they post their writings?
              My concern is simple. How can we spread understanding of the issues if they are written in such a way that only the insiders understand them? This is called preaching to the choir.

            4. I looked him up and recognize his picture. Is Searson that guy who reviews guns like he is talking to Armory technicians? Yeah, he could easily write so more people can understand what he is saying. I just don’t remember him by name. I think he also writes about silencers/suppressors from an insider’s perspective. All technical, very little practical information.

            5. Wild Bill, I put my crayons away 50 years ago. They did not use them in the Gifted and Talented programs in the schools. Maybe you can donate some of your vast supply of crayons to David. I bet you have plenty of colors that you never use because you are afraid of the name of the color. I’m sure Fuzzy Wuzzy Brown looks so much like the skid marks in your undershorts that you are afraid to touch it. He’ll do fine without the pink crayons that you use to color all of those pink triangles .
              What do you use to clean off your display when you forget you have a keyboard and start writing on it with your crayons.

            6. @Idadho, Oh, you thought that the crayons comment applied to you? Sorry that my writing was unclear. Apparently, you have applied it to yourself.

            7. Hey Dork. This is not Twitter. @Idadho is some person who goes by Supita on Twitter. Is your use of @ because your head is up your @?

            8. Wild Bill, Gene, and oldvet, Do you get together to have panty parties to see who can twist their gramma panties into a bunch the fastest? I hope you guys don’t carry. You sure get tweaked easily.

            9. @Idahoe, Now, just calm down. I did not mean to cause you to flip out. And the symbol @ means “at”. For example @ $4.00 per lb. or CW4 Chiles had his marriage reception @ the Hardrock, Seoul. or @ PL orange, sir., . So don’t get rapped too tight because not everyone finds you distasteful.

            10. WB, Using @ for every name makes you look like a bunch a Twittering school girls. You can be better than that. Old Vet can dissect my screen name but the truth is it a a play on Idaho Dad. I am a proud father and grandfather.
              I also believe that if we are going to grow and support the gun community, we need to communicate in ways that people understand. Being exclusionary with inside knowledge writings just marginalizes us as gun loving goons stuck in our own world. We also need to present a less arrogant image. Many of the photos of authors present quite a ‘I’m better than you.’ image. Fine for an office wall but not for Ammoland if they want to reach a broader audience.
              We can soften the presentation without diluting the message.
              I’ve worked on political initiatives since the late 70s. I was a Reagan republican before most of you knew who Reagan was. He was my governor back when California was a great state.
              You do catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Put a liberal anti-gunner in a life threatening situation and many will become progun if they can find a refuge. A softer presentation can be that refuge.

            11. @Idaho …@ signifies who is being responded to . Eliminates confusion so no one has to ask to whom you were referring . Some men can be real bad from behind a bush .

            12. @Idaho, Now that you have picked a different emotion to express yourself with, I was on a raiding party once, and I knew a Chief Warrant Officer that brought the most beautiful Korean hooker that you ever saw to his promotion party, but I don’t know anything about a panty party. What is that all about?
              @ everybody else, I’m just asking him about it because he seems to know. I did not say that I would go over to his house for brownies and milk.

            13. Panty parties are when the ladies get together and show off lingerie and gripe about PMS and men. Sort of a Tupperware party with panties. I thought maybe you guys enjoyed them. I’ve never been to one but see the vinyl graphics on minivans driving around town. Those panty mommies like to use @ in all their tweets and posts.
              The real women have Damsel in Defense, Well Armed Women, or GunGoddess graphics on their SUVs. I bet they go commando so they don’t need panty parties.

              Oldvet, maybe it is time to change your screen name to Oldfart. I bet the grands and great grands would agree.

            14. @Idaho… I can hold my own. You see what kind of responses happen when someone comes off as being so sour on life that they just cant get the acid out of their systems. There have been some trolls on here who’s only purpose in life seemed to be to antagonize . Most folks on here are not bashful about telling them how the cow ate the cabbage.

            15. You guys respond like liberals. I address an issue such a poor writing and you respond by attacking the person. That is a Saul Alinsky tactic. There was only one response to the issue that did not attack me. When you start slinging names and innuendo, I can throw mud back. It becomes a sport. I’ve dealt with bullies all my life. They tend to pick on the most intelligent and successful.
              WB’s last post about crayons does not even make sense. I said 50 years ago, not 5 years ago.
              If you want to not sound like liberals, address the issues. There is an old adage. The least intelligent talk about people. More intelligent talk about things. The most intelligent talk about ideas. We all know the least intelligent are the liberals. Where in the spectrum are you?

            1. @OV I think, that he just gets frustrated, then angry, then lashes out. When he gets emotional, he gets to sounding liberal. I don’t know. Machs nixt.
              You should see the groovy Browning SA 22 that I bought for Christmas. Grade VI

            2. @OV, If one reviews his posts above, you will notice that he writes, “Wild Bill, I put my crayons away 50 years ago.” So either he put his crayons away late in life or he was a grandfather really early in life, or … Most curious discrepancy.
              Should I pull a little more on this yarn to see what unravels? Naaa. It is almost Christmas.

          1. @Idaho… you have to realize we are use to dealing with liberals on here , most times the only way to deal with someone who sounds like a liberal is like a liberal.

          1. @Clark, So disappointing. You drop a little insult and flit off to somewhere else to troll. You grace us with neither your presence, a defense of your comments, nor anything beyond a couple of one liners.

      2. I actually agree. I have a difficult time reading many of Codrea’s articles. He’s obviously a intelligent man, he sometimes puts things in a way that I am confused about. The “mental midget” stuff is simply uncalled for, as if the comment about the article is a slight to any reader or even to Codrea. I have a degree from a private University, spend a lot of my spare time reading news articles and whatnot, and this article is confusing to me. I don’t know why we can’t simply treat each other with respect. How can we fight against the tyranny that Codrea writes about if we are too busy squabbling amongst ourselves?

    8. Great article David C. I’ve felt for years their simple answer to firearms is regulations. If they can’t ignore the Constitution, they will just make us all criminals, and ineligible to possess firearms. In my own state of Virginia, the Lautenberg Act is the standard on any domestic call. Basically don’t call the cops if it’s any sort of family dispute, period. Is this what we really want. The Lautenberg Act is retroactive, a misdemeanor from 25 years is a death sentence to the 2cd amendment.

    9. “Commonsense Safety” You’ve got to be kidding?

      Nothing but more Orwellian DoubleSpeak conjured up by highly paid (by Soros & Bloomberg) “Communication Consultants;” like the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, “PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING”

      1. Let’s see: Rosen, Lautenberg, Soros, Greenburg, Rosner, Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, etc, etc, etc. What do they all have in common. If I could just put my finger on it………..

    Leave a Comment 49 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *