Previous post
Law enforcement hardly had a chance to respond to the shooting in Aurora, Illinois on Friday when the gun control idiots swarmed out from under their rocks to posture in front of the cameras. Even the wanna be President candidates weighed in. Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar issued a call for ‘sensible gun control.’
Yes folks, she wants gun control that makes sense.
“It is time to do something about, by the way, after the tragedy in what we saw happen in Aurora, Illinois yesterday. It is time to put sensible gun legislation in place,” Klobuchar said to voters.
“I actually sat across from the president at that meeting, because I have a bill, a bipartisan bill, involving domestic violence, I counted nine times he said he was for universal background checks,” she added.
But with this oh so sensible legislation, what would new and improved universal background checks have done in this case? Exactly NOTHING.
You see, while Amy was parroting her narrative and pushing her legislation, Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act (S. 1520), we find out that the shooter wasn’t supposed to have a gun.
First of all, this wasn’t a domestic violence case, even though the shooter had been arrested years ago for the same. This was a man who was pissed off that he got fired.
Gary Montez Martin, 45, killed the five people after being fired from his job at Henry Pratt in Aurora, and he was later fatally shot by police after apparently waiting for officers to arrive in a back machine shop, authorities said.
Secondly, the current laws did work, somewhat.
CNN reported the shooter had been identified by police and they said he was not supposed to be in possession of a firearm because he was convicted of felony aggravated assault in Mississippi in 1995. His conviction was flagged a few days shortly after he bought the gun in 2014 and was supposed to turn it in.
His FOID card was then revoked and his conceal carry application was rejected.
Read the above again. Now tell me Amy, exactly what new and improved “sensible” gun laws would’ve prevented this?
The police were notified and KNEW that he wasn’t supposed to be in possession of any firearms whatsoever. But did they track him down to ensure he turned in the handgun? Sort of. You see, they sent him a letter. Yes, a letter.
Gun control laws currently in place were enforced. Sort of.
Tell me Amy, if current laws aren’t fully enforced, what exactly will brand spanking new “sensible” gun control fix?
And how about this Amy?
1/ #Gunsense peeps, the #FFL I work for reported an illegal #strawpurchase to #ATF in December. We didn’t know it at the time we sold the #gun, but walking the woman out of the store we saw her exchange the gun w/ someone else for money. We reported it the same day.
— Shayna Lopez Rivas (@noleforjustice) February 17, 2019
2/ Less then two weeks ago, IN FEBRUARY, ATF reached out to us to investigate the straw purchase bc the firearm was given to a felon who used it in a crime. THEY WAITED UNTIL A VIOLENT CRIME WAS COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATE NEARLY TWO MONTHS AFTER THE ILLEGAL SALE WAS REPORTED.
— Shayna Lopez Rivas (@noleforjustice) February 17, 2019
Amy, before you go forward with your grandstanding “sensible gun control” legislation, perhaps you want to have a chat with the ATF and find out why they didn’t immediately act upon the report of the illegal straw purchase discussed above. Perhaps you should also ask the ATF why those who are caught lying on their 4473’s and yet are never prosecuted?
Here’s a sensible suggestion Amy. Advocate for full 100% enforcement of ALL current gun laws on the books. I dare you to do so and see what happens.
Oh wait, she’s a Democrat and that kind of sense is not within her purview.
Feature Photo Credit: Pixabay.com, cropped and modified
Robin H says: So we shouldn’t bother to build a wall on the border because it’s not going to stop all the illegals anyway, but we need to keep passing more gun laws that won’t stop people from getting guns illegally. If the democrats didn’t actually believe this it would make a great parody.
John C. says: The Supreme Court case Haynes v. U.S. (1968) established that due to 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination a felon could not be prosecuted for lying on a gun registration form, as to answer it correctly would be self-incrimination and make him subject to arrest and prosecution. The Form 4473, whatever they want to call it, is a gun registration form; anyone caught lying on one would have a good defense under the Haynes ruling, so one might well ask what is the point of the Form 4473s (the answer is, it makes for prosecution of non-felons for paperwork violations so the BATF can boost their arrest records). But it is ineffective at restraining actual criminals, and will remain so.
Rick Caird says: Sensible” is always used to describe whatever measure the left wants to oppose. I remember how ObamaCare was supposed to be “sensible health care reform”, but the mandate and forced policy standards were anything but sensible. They were extreme.
Rick Caird says: “Oppose” was supposed to be “propose”
GWB says: There Is No Such Thing As “Sensible Gun Control”
I disagree wholeheartedly. Both hands in a modified Weaver stance, slightly favoring the dominant eye, focused on the target and not the sights, and squeeze the trigger (don’t jerk). Along with “treat every gun as if it were loaded”, “never point your gun at something unless you’re willing to kill/destroy it”, “know what’s beyond your target” and “keep your booger hook off the bang switch”, I think that makes for pretty sensible gun control.
(I hope that didn’t trigger anyone.)
Dave says: Pretty much my standard answer to “gun control.”
Also, there’s this: https://www.range365.com/handgun-grips-what-works-what-doesnt
6 Comments