‘Roadmap’ Latest ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Citizen Disarmament

Because how can all the demands for the government to disarm Americans that Moore has made over the years possibly threaten gun owners? (97percent/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- A relatively new bankrolled “gun safety” organization purports to have a plan to reduce “gun violence” that can bring people on both sides of the issue together. In Part One, AmmoLand looked at a so-called “Policy Roadmap” put out by 97percent, a group purporting to find “common ground” between gun owners and “gun safety advocates.”  We examined the three “core principles” they say their plan is built upon and follows:

  1. To focus on the core principle shared by gun owners and non-gun owners: Gun policies should ensure that people who are at high risk for violence cannot access guns.
  2. To identify a limited set of policies, that when combined, were demonstrated to have the greatest impact on reducing gun violence.
  3. To respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess guns.

Let’s now look at the four “policy” infringements the 97percent group wants to see imposed under the force of law.

“Set violent misdemeanor crimes as the threshold for exclusion from gun purchase and possession,” Policy 1 would mandate. “The current felony threshold for excluding someone from gun ownership does not capture many violent crimes including, but not limited to, assault, battery, stalking, cyberstalking, and threats of violence – whether in-person or on social media.”

If that means I can sic the cops on the anti-gun loon on Twitter who wanted my children to be shot to death, the part of me interested in schadenfreude for those who deserve it is tempted.  But also caught up in this tyrannical expansion will be those Gun Owners of America documented in its “Lautenberg Horror Stories” back in 2008, with minor altercations and plea bargains resulting in lifetime gun bans. Take a moment and read (and share) that.

“Implement gun permit laws at the state level, in conjunction with background checks,” Policy 2 demands. You’ll need a state permit to BUY a gun, with additional prior restraints requiring two levels of training, and a verification burden on gun dealers. That, and the permit would expire in five years (along with recognition of your rights).

But wait, they say, there are “benefits”! It “would eliminate the need for background checks with valid permits …  eliminate the need for potentially discriminatory ‘may issue” laws” [and] would open the door to concealed carry permit reciprocity between states that have permitting systems in place.”

Note they say “would eliminate the need,” with no guarantee that it would eliminate the REQUIREMENT. With the creative contortions that we see happening in the states to sabotage the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision, it’s not hard to imagine New York or California using this as an opportunity to add a whole slew of new hurdles to deny the right. And as long as they’re getting the hopes of the ignorant up, there’s nothing saying states that don’t want to have to reciprocate.

Compromising rights in exchange for false promises is a fool’s game they hope plenty who don’t listen too closely to the professionally crafted slick talking will play.

Policy 3 may as well have been issued by the Department of Redundancy Department (h/t The Firesign Theater):

“Ensure background checks, at the state and federal level, are part of the gun permitting process.”

Evidently, if one prior restraint infringement is good, two are even better. Disregard that the aforementioned gangbangers causing most of the urban Democrat angst will now have two laws to break without batting an eye instead of one.

Oh, but you get “benefits” here, too, we are promised:

“Gun owners would not need a new background check each time they purchased a gun, provided they held a valid gun permit. [and] Gun sales or transfers between family members would not require a NICS check or a state background check, as long as the person receiving the gun has a valid gun permit.”

Yeah? Are they going to make New Jersey play? And who can’t get a permit “thanks” to closing up that “misdemeanor loophole”? And not to beat a dead horse, but what kind of guns will those not culled through the new restrictions be eligible to buy again?

There are two other things 97percent “forgot” to mention with all those promises about reducing “gun violence,” a little-regarded admission from a 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report documenting:

“An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

And a 2013 National Institute of Justice “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” concluded this about “Universal Background Checks”:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

Who knows what registration leads to? Anyone?

It’s almost like the real goal here isn’t to reduce “gun violence” at all…

Policy 4 will surprise no one but the willfully self-deluded.

“Implement red flag laws at the state level.”

Time was, even children recognized the absurd tyranny of Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts proclaiming “Sentence first — verdict afterward.” That should tell us something about the level of intellectual maturity those who actually believe gun-grabber promises have attained.

“Family members or law enforcement officials can petition a court to remove firearms from a person who is a threat to themselves or others,” we are told. What we’re not told is, never satisfied with what’s surrendered to them, the prohibitionists then invent new categories like the “boyfriend loophole.” And the “terror loophole.” And the “hater loophole.” And, if we’re to believe the prevailing “progressive” sentiment, don’t be surprised to see a “Trump supporter loophole” followed by a “Republican loophole”…

“How does it respect rights of law-abiding gun owners?” the roadmap disingenuously asks.  “[It] establishes a procedure that ensures lawful gun owners aren’t deprived of their due process,” it answers itself.


If you have done something to prove you’re a threat, just taking guns away will do nothing to stop you from being a continued danger to specific victims and/or to everyone around you. And if you are accused, that means authorities need to arrest, charge, and try you, and if you’re found guilty, separate you from society. It also means you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that you have a right to confront your accusers.

That’s real “due process.” (Yes, “restraining orders” are recognized as “settled law,” and that’s not going to change. But that doesn’t mean they’re worth the paper they’re written on to those who violate them.)

Without that, gun owners are subject to the prejudices and biases of Democrat-sympathizing judges and clinical evaluators. And good luck ever getting evaluated “safe again” by psychiatric assessors, their lawyers, risk management administrators, and their insurers, who won’t be universally willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a “disabled” person they later proclaim “fit” to once more own a gun be misdiagnosed. The default bias – not to mention their financial and licensing incentives – will be to “err on the side of caution.”

But don’t worry, we’re assured, the policy “would penalize people for vindictively using red flag laws against a gun owner.”

How? Would they be penalized before or after a trial (with appeals) where they are afforded real due process?

Would Democrat prosecutors use their discretion to allow a lesser plea, or not to pursue charges at all? And what happens if the hapless victim of their vindictiveness does not have the resources/wherewithal/knowledge and support to challenge charges in the first place, or is “persuaded” not to file a cross-complaint lest new “legal” complications are added to his life?

Presenting “red flags” as anything other than ways for the state to deny rights without going through the rigors of providing a burden of proof is at best dishonest, and at worst a mask for un-American tyranny.

We’ll look at some of those “bipartisan” gun owners joining with 97percent to “find common ground” in Part Three.

About 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. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We have roughly the same amount of murders via firearm today that we did 90 years ago, despite adding about 200 million people and 350 million guns to the mix. There is no gun violence epidemic, and no laws were needed after we outlawed murder; the additional 23,000 state and federal gun control laws are all ineffective and unconstitutional infringements.


drugs flooding across our southern border kill 100x more but you won’t hear that in the news…

Last edited 8 days ago by Rodoeo

Ms Moore,
You are Correct,
YOU dont understand.


Early Progressive theorists developed the concepts of prior restraint and we see them today in public policy in Blue America. The assumption they operated under was inverse to that of our Founding generation. The founding assumptions were based on the idea that the majority, 90%, can manage their lives in a state of liberty with only a light touch of government to help maintain civl society. Governance was from the people, by and of the people. Progressives inverted those assumptions and advanced the notion that only 10% of the population were capable of running their lives with only a light… Read more »

Arkansas Rob

I wish I could give this more than one upvote.


Perfectly said and 100% accurate. The first order of business is ridding the country of religion and our means of self defense. They’re well on their way on both fronts.


I don’t trust the gun grabbers at all. I’m not interested in their “compromise.” Far too often their “compromise” is all sacrifice on the part of supporters of our human rights and a temporary agreement from gun grabbers to not bite away at more of our rights. Then a period of time elapses or an even occurs and they’re back at the table salivating at strapping on the feed bag to devour more of our rights. No thanks. This has occurred since 1934 right on through today.



If there were true compromise we 2A proponents would actually be getting something out of any deal. And we never do. Its always the dems saying something to the effect of “We really want all your guns but we’ll compromise and only take half of them”. That’s their idea of compromise


You’re right. and that is why I’m very uninterested in talking about compromise with people who seek to infringe on our rights.


I have a great compromise they can give up their right, and I will keep mine they come for my guns they go home in a box


I have nothing in common with pussies who don’t own guns. There but for the grace of me / us they have any freedom left at all.

There is no common ground


So this is the “New” organization that is named as a balance against our 3%???? At least they know a little math. 97% + 3% = 100%. They are truly full of 100% bull sh!t. Also always acting like the petulant children they are….constantly changing their strategy hoping to fool the population.


She don’t understand because she is an idiot. What malkes her think that her acting ability has anything to do with gun safety or anything that cocerns our 2A rights. If it were up to her and her liberal pals in la la land, all our rights would be gone. If she’s so concerned with safety why hasn’t she rallied to give her pal Baldwin a few safety lessons?


Gun owners *>ARE<* the gun safety advocates. Don't fall for the narrative that makes out gun owners as the defenders of dangerous and negligent conduct. These unConstitutional policies are advocated by the same sorts of people who don't believe in prosecuting criminals or letting violent recidivists run loose in the community. The common ground can only be liberty. Liberty for all potential victims to not have unrepentant thugs running loose in society and to not have liberal unconstitutional policies given any serious thought after discovering what they are. In the end, liberals are advocating for an unnecessarily dangerous society by… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Any gun conttol is still gun control, and unconstitutional.


I don’t understand how anyone can think Red Flag Laws are of any benefit. A person believed to be on the edge of hurting others or themselves is subject to a raid on their home confiscating their property. Will this calm the person or agitate them even more? Will the police also confiscate all their knives, ropes, prescription drugs, hand tools and baseball bats? As stated above, 93% of criminals obtain their firearm through illegal means. So what prevents the Red Flag Law victim from doing the same? You don’t take the weapons from the potential criminal leaving them free to… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Tske the oerson into protective custody after a detailed and thorough process of checks and balances against abuse.


thia ia already in the laws of almost every state, and has been seriously abused many times, That protective custody can be triggered by many things whilst the subject is being evaluated. I well remember a case down in Jackson County Oregon a few years back. Seriously messed up a guy’s life and cost him a ton of money. Lost all his guns for far too long, they trashed his house when they came to take him away. The shrinks where he was taken for “evaluation” tossed him out as “norma;” in just a few hours, so he wasn;t barmy… Read more »


“We’ll look at some of those “bipartisan” gun owners joining with 97percent to “find common ground” in Part Three.”

Make sure Sen. Rubio is on that list.


There’s really no point arguing with a committed anti-gun person. I have a casual friend who says she wants to have a “real discussion” about guns but declines to state her position. She of course claims I’m the one who refuses to discuss the topic. So she goes off.


Ago – that seems to be their default tactic. Add in their name calling and demonizing of anyone who doesn’t agree with ‘their’ ideas and that pretty much is how they handle ‘discussions’.


There has been a “real discussion” going on since at least the 1960s.

Some folks ignore that fact because:

a. They really haven’t been paying attention.


b. The discussion isn’t turning out the way they hoped.


c. They don’t want a discussion, They want a lecture.


The same crowd who can’t seem to tell us what a woman is want’s to lecture us on “gun safety.”

My guess is they wouldn’t recognize true gun safety if it crawled up their leg and bit them on the behind.


Nice try, Ms. Moore! Thanks for playing!


My question is, How much financial incentive has China offered 14th Row Joe to Disarm the RESPONSIBLE citizens of the U.S.? Obviously, they don’t care about criminal disarmament since those ‘citizens’ would not pose a threat to China’s plans.


How to bring New Jersey into play? Impossible. With a rabidly anti-gun governor, “we need fewer guns”, and a legislature hellbent on putting as many obstacles in the way of gun ownership as can be imposed by the state, compromise with gun owners, much less anything other than paying lip service to the Second Amendment, is out of the question. Notice also, this “new” shtick, like all the rest of the heavily bankrolled “gun safety” orgs, doesn’t address punishing criminal misuse of firearms or any of the other misdeeds associated therewith. As always with the leftist/authoritarian mindset: they believe the… Read more »


Lady when you have removed all guns and violence from hollywierd then we can talk !


About removing such things from video games !


What are they 97% stupid?


100% stupid


progs/leftists play word salad, they put a bunch of words together, step back and think, “look how virtuous we are”, while having done nothing beneficial to address the issue and actually have harmed more people than they have helped.
restricting a persons right is a form of slavery, and no one should be the master of another, although there is still much slavery around the world.
i will willingly die a free man rather than be a safe slave.


Of course she will never understand the true concept of gun safety.

1) Treat every gun as a loaded gun
2) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire
3) Never point a gun at anyone/anything you don’t fully intend to permanently destroy
4) Educate EVERYONE you encounter of the above 3 principles

There you have it. “Common sense” gun rules.

The solution to gun violence? Prosecute everyone committing a crime with a gun to the fullest extent of the law without exception or any sort of “early release”.

Simple, effective, non-discriminatory and enforceable.


“Prosecute everyone committing a crime. Full Stop”.

Fixed it for ya.

WAKE up man we do NOT have a”gun problem” we have a CRIME probl3m.


They think sime kind if court restraining order will protect someone from an “unstable” gun owner? That worked so well when the Broward County court issued a court restraining order denying a certain young punk, known to have committed at least three felonies in the past couple of years, when he bought a rifle through a licensed firearms dealer with nio probl3m or delay then showed up at the high school from which he had been expelled recently and murdered a large number of non-threatening students and staff in just a few minutes. fat lotta good that court order, not… Read more »


Safety ? Where’s that written in 2A ? End of argument.


“Gun owners would not need a new background check each time they purchased a gun, provided they held a valid gun permit. [and] Gun sales or transfers between family members would not require a NICS check or a state background check, as long as the person receiving the gun has a valid gun permit.” Not that many years ago I decided to buy a new rifle.I hoppe into my old car, drove across the state line into the neighbouring state, walked into a sporting goods store, saw ine Iliked, said “I’ll take it”. He went into the back, brought out… Read more »


Of course there are Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules of Gun Safety: Rule #1–Assume all guns are always loaded: This is a straightforward rule without exceptions. Whenever you pick up a gun, check it yourself. When you have confirmed that it’s not loaded, continue with the mindset that it is loaded. Don’t ever put yourself into a situation where you end up saying, “I didn’t know the gun was loaded!” Rule #2—Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy: Any weapon that has been assembled and is in your hands could be discharged. This rule applies to… Read more »


Memories are very short in this country, less than a year ago, it was still gun control, except for criminals, democrats changed to gun safe, to appease the overtone. Stupid as stupid does.


I have no idea who this person is. She evidently has influence over bubblegummers and old women. I consider myself blessed!


Fentanyl is now killing 100x more people than firearms but do we even hear that in the news other than seeing it on local news channels, 2/3 deaths a week? We all know what their goal is regarding firearms. Total disarmament of society. Other things can kill 10x more people yet you won’t hear about it in the MSM.


“… would open the door to concealed carry permit reciprocity between states that have permitting systems in place.” Actually, there already is in place just such a guarantee. Its called the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” and can be found in the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 1. “Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect… Read more »