My letter to the NRA President

[CitizenBBN]

I received an email laying out their security suggestion, and asking for responses and input. While I know 1,000s of such emails will be sent if not 10s of 1,000s, I still wrote on in hope some of these ideas will reach the NRA and could be part of a "reform" proposal that is part of the overall NRA response. I believe these things will not only be improvements to the system but politically gives NRA supporters in the House the ability to demand "changes" without that change being restricting the rights of 50 million American gun owners.

My letter:

Mr. LaPierre,

Thank you for your work at this very difficult time for gun owners and all Americans.

For purposes of disclosure I am a FFL and Class III dealer as well as instructor of the Concealed Carry class in Kentucky.

I applaud your recommendation of security at schools which I strongly support and believe to be the only solution thus proposed that has any chance of preventing a similar tragedy. In addition I would like to suggest some particular reforms within the gun industry that would be both helpful in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others and also be seen by the broader audience as the NRA trying to address the “gun issue.” Further none of these suggestions would curtail our rights.



Allow non-FFL dealers to use the NICS system to conduct background checks for private sales. This would be optional, but many gun owners I talk to would like to double check on people they sell to privately. One implementation option is to allow dealers to run these checks for people as well. Right now it is illegal to use the system except for our own transactions.
Eliminate the premises requirement for FFL licenses. Currently a FFL must conduct all transactions at a specific physical location. In the era of internet and cell phones, where background checks can be conducted from anywhere in the world, this is an outdated requirement that only limits the ability of dealers to conduct sales that would be guaranteed to go through the background check process. If the goal of the anti-gun advocates is truly to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, they should be trying to expand the role dealers play in gun transactions in the country as they run the checks and keep the records. Work WITH the industry, not against it.
Improvements to the NICS system itself. Based on my discussions with the FBI NICS Liaison to the industry they use 3 databases but have to do a great deal of research regarding state court records. There are lots of gaps there and it is a great burden on the NICS office not only because of the inquiries they must make of the states but because those inquiries are a low priority for the various county and state clerks. I see nothing wrong with us making sure the NICS system works.
Legislate the ATF to investigate potential felonies committed by those submitting false data on the 4473. When a NICS check is done and comes back denied due to a disqualification such as felony conviction, it is highly likely the person has falsified data on the 4473 to indicate he had no felony convictions. As I understand it from a NSSF seminar, the number of these people prosecuted is in the hundreds, whereas the number of dealers audited annually is in the thousands.


Options which are minimally infringing, but acceptable to me as a “tactical” gun owner would include:



Require these so called “assault rifles” and/or higher capacity magazines be properly secured by the owner. This goes directly to the facts we now know about Newtown.
Set a “bright line rule” for who should be a dealer and who shouldn’t. Right now it is up to ATF discretion if someone has “intent” of being a dealer, there is simply no way to know for sure. By defining an annual amount in quantity or value we could be seen as “closing a loophole”, often cited as the gun show loophole, that people who are in fact dealing in firearms are licensed and regulated.


As a last resort I can see these weapons being treated as machineguns were treated with the creation of the NFA class of weapons. They can still be purchased, owned and sold but an additional requirement must in some way be met such as what happens with Class III transfers with a direct ATF approval. I do NOT like this option nor do I think it needs to be as extreme as NFA, but if we are to end up compromising on this issue in some way this at least does allow the guns to be accessible to people albeit under terms we don’t like. It is in my view still better than not having them available at all.

No one, but no one wants to stop these tragedies more than gun owners. We share the outrage of all Americans at the pure evil that we saw last week, and we then get to experience an ill informed push to deny what we know is a critical Constitutional right. I think more than anything we need to make it clear we would love nothing more than to never see another mass murder, but to do so we must take actions that will actually stop them, not just make us feel good for trying. To that end I am willing to embrace even the somewhat infringing options above but only in the context of a broader addressing of this issue, one which you proposed today with the need for professional security that might actually have a chance to work and spare us these future events.

I thank you for your time and again for your hard work at such a difficult time. No doubt you will be receiving thousands of these emails but I do hope some of these suggestions make it to the people at NRA trying to craft their response to this situation.

If there is anything I can personally do on these suggestions or in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,



I'm curious what those on here who are more pro-ban think of these suggestions. They are not "headline grabbing" but are the substantive changes we really need IMO. Would people be able to accept working with the dealers and the industry if suggestions like these were made? How are they perceived?

[BigBluePappy]

I am not a pro-ban person; far from it.
I still own guns and enjoy shooting, I just don't have any in my house.
It is a decision me and my beautmous bride came to (spoiler alert - get the younguns away from the computer) that if I could find "Santa Claus" at a relatively young age and my parents were no dummies, then my grandkids could.
I have not had the opportunity to try and have the "gun talk" with the kids due to the parents wishes. I respect that.
We had to weigh the convenience of me keeping the guns here versus the "cons" of could I live if anything happened to one of my beautiful and precious grandbabies if they got to them. I know of trigger locks which render a gun useless, and the answer, for me, at this time, was I could live without them. I would take my chances in a hand to hand situation.
I still support gun owners rights, just not worth the risk for me.

[CitizenBBN]

Pappy I think you've made a good considered choice. Were you to keep any guns there I'd push hard for a quality safe rather than a gun lock as they are too easy to circumvent, but I know that's not a decision you're making. Just wanted it on the record.

I didn't own a pistol till less than a year ago. Still don't own any hunting rifles. I don't have kids so I'm not in the same boat but when my nieces visit I'm like you, there's nothing in the house they could possibly get to.

For me the issue is about doing useful things to solve problems. Often those things aren't headline solutions, they're the details that make the difference between working and failing.

[CattyWampus]

CBBN, I'm sure that the NRA did receive thousands of responses to their request for input, but I'm equally sure that not many of them were as fact-based and comprehensive as your response.

You're the type of person that needs to sit on a task force to solve the "problem". Unlike the typical person who will be appointed to Joe BiteMe's task force, you would first try to get a consensus to define what the real problem is before discussing solutions. People in Washington always seem to do just the opposite. For them, it's not about solutions to real defined problems. It's about gamesmanship.

Good job with the letter, CBBN. May I share it on other message boards?

[CitizenBBN]

Sure. There are a few things I'd have added to it but for brevity I figured if there were any chance in Hades of anyone reading it I needed to keep it to just a few points.

There are some things also the NRA is dead set against that I would either support or tolerate. They really don't like the idea of private people having to do background checks for sales. Honestly I have little issue with that. I want the guns out of the hands of those we determine shouldn't have them and while I believe in property rights and the market I have no desire to see criminals buying guns regardless of the seller.

The NRA is afraid it opens the door to long term preventing private sales, and more than one anti-gun politician has stated outright they'd end them. When you have Feinstein saying in 1994 that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate she'd have confiscated every gun, you can see their reason for being so reluctant to give an inch.

The leaders of the anti-gun movement, both political and judicial, either flat do not believe the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or just think it's outmoded and irrelevant. Against that kind of view it's easy to understand the NRA's and gun owner's reluctance to give in any at all b/c we all know they are just trying to chip away at the foundation stone every chance they get and any compromise won't last but just be a delay till they can take another chip off the rock.

FOr example Feinstein et al want to ban internet sales of ammunition. OK doesn't sound like the end of the world, right? But we know they also support licensing and tracking of ammunition sales like in Illinois where you have to have a FOID card to buy ammo. They want it off the internet and 100% in stores b/c it's one step closer to getting nationwide licensing and more important nationwide tracking of who is buying ammo. They've supported embedding of tracking tags in each round so it can be traced back to the buyer. So the NRA takes the position defending internet ammo sales and people say "well why fight for that, they can buy it in stores", but there is a good reason it's just not on that issue itself.

They come off as paranoid and unreasonable, but they're right about the motives and goals of the anti-gun movement. Pitino talks about the NRA agenda, but fails to mention Feinstein and Schumer and Biden and others who have led a decades long crusade against gun ownership. They have fought concealed carry, fought types of guns and magazines, fought ammo sales, supported judges who don't think the 2nd Amendment applies to citizens, and at various times said outright they'd confiscate all the guns if they could.

They're the worst kind of Leftist, the one who is blindly convinced they're right and know what is best for everyone and will force that decision upon them if necessary. They don't have any interest in studying the problem or learning about it, they just simplistically see their mission and go after it. The classic definition of a zealot.

Want a good example of a zealot over a reasoned person pursuing a goal? Feinstein wants to ban barrel shrouds. A barrel shroud is a piece of metal that goes around some part of the barrel so that when the barrel gets hot you don't touch it and burn yourself. it has vent holes to let the barrel be air cooled but protects the shooter.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gun's effectiveness or firepower, it's merely a handling convenience for the shooter. They are however common on military looking rifles, b/c military rifles have them b/c of that handling need. they are grabbing them and carrying them and moving with them in unconventional ways so they have shrouds, and the civilian versions to match the look do the same thing.

for civilian guns it's almost totally for looks and convenience. It has almost no impact on the usability of the gun, esp. for mass shootings. Totally irrelevant.

But it LOOKS like a military gun thing so they want it banned. What it shows is that despite decades of leading this cause Feinstein and her staff still to this day cannot distinguish guns based on their capabilities or risks but only on their looks. They are no more informed than an American who has never held a gun, even though she's sent her staff undercover to gun shows for years and has authored this kind of legislation dozens of times (usually it doesn't even get submitted).

That's a zealot. Someone so intense on their goal but with no understanding of it or how best to pursue it. They are the worst thing that can happen if you want to solve a problem. But b/c they frame the debate, thanks to the media who 90% vote liberal, they manage to make the NRA look like the zealots who won't compromise. They can afford to compromise b/c they are fighting for a chip here and there, they all look like compromises but they aren't. They're just stones in the road.

[KeithKSR]

Pappy, most children injured by guns occurs when they have not been taught about firearms. Children properly educated are less likely to be injured by them at the homes of friends as well.

My grandparents kept firearms, in fact one of the shotguns I have used to be kept loaded behind my Grandmother's bedroom door when I was a kid. Dad had a shotgun until I turned 13, when we then had multiple guns after I got my first shotgun at that age. My kids have grown up with firearms in the house.

The big key to safety was not keeping things locked up, but educating the next generation.

[KeithKSR]

Chuck, How do the guys at gun shows sell under their FFLs when restricted by physical address? I've bought from dealers at shows before, and had to fill out the 4473. I've also bought from individuals and they required an ID be shown to them to prove that I was a Ky resident before they would sell to me.

I don't agree with any special requirements for assault weapons, the assault weapon is not used in enough crimes by percentage to garner any special treatment inside the home of Joe Citizen. I'm of the opinion that if you give an inch they will take a mile.

[CitizenBBN]

Keith, the gun shows are a special exemption to the premises requirement, the only one. For a long time dealers couldn't sell at gun shows. Imagine that logic: "we're worried about people buying guns without background checks so let's keep the only people who do them from selling them at gun shows, guaranteeing every gun sold there has no check performed."

that's the way it was. Then dealers got an exemption but only for gun shows. BTW what constitutes a "gun show" isn't defined in federal law in precise terms. The whole gun show thing is very murky from what constitutes a dealer to what qualifies something as a "gun show" for legal purposes.

[kritikalcat]

A few more thoughts

* don't assume that activists like Feinstein are so ignorant. They know that regardless of functionality a gun that looks like something a soldier might carry into battle will stir up a certain reaction in a portion of the populace.
* on the other side of the coin, is it unthinkable that a militaristic appearance - regardless of functionality - might provoke some unwelcome psychological responses in people who aren't the most stable?

On a more fundamental level, I'm not sure that either side has really come to terms with the Heller decision. In Heller v. DC SCOTUS held that 1) the 2nd amendment does protect an individual right, and 2) exercise of that right is subject to reasonable regulation (as are other rights given protection in the BOR.)

[KeithKSR]

I think some of the media are getting overly excited by the comments of a few democratic senators who have traditionally supported the second amendment and said they would be open to discussing all options. Being open to discussing options and willing to vote for sweeping legislation that Feinstein is planning to submit are quite different. WV's Joe Manchin is already getting heat over his comments that his constituents consider to be a political flip-flop. It will also not be lost on many politicians that lots of members of Congress that voted for the Clinton ban didn't get to return to Washington.

A ban based purely on the physical appearance of a weapon or even magazine size could end up before the SCOTUS, where they will have to decide if such a ban is reasonable. A company like Ruger would have a pretty valid claim in being included unjustly on the list; many of their Mini-14 and Mini-30 models are sold with 5 shot magazines and have few of the traits mentioned in the preliminary details of Feinstein's list. The heat shield is more for looks than actual heat dissipation.

Perhaps the largest hurdle any ban has to face is the sheer number of gunowners that exist today compared to nearly 20 years ago. More NICS checks were done on Black Friday 2012 than on any other day in history. Guns of all kind have been flying out the doors of dealers for most of the last decade. Few states had concealed carry laws when the first ban was passed, since that time the majority of states in the union adopted concealed carry laws, as well as castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. States adopting such laws have seen crime rates fall far quicker than states where no such laws exist and the states and locales which had the most stringent laws against gun ownership showed the slowest declines of all. While the anti-gun faction will try to dismiss such statistics it is unlikely the courts will dismiss them when the primary impetus of challenges to any ban will center on the ability of people to defend themselves.

[CitizenBBN]

Keith the court angle just showed up in the 7th Circuit ruling Illinois' conceal carry ban unconstitutional. the ruling said Illinois has failed to show actual evidence of it improving public safety that would justify removing the right from its citizens. I agree that could be a pivotal decision.

This is why I was so wanting Obama out -- if he gets to pick any justices you can kiss that notion of rights and not privileges goodbye. Heller was 5-4.

I think a number of politicians saying "will consider all options" is just political expediency. It wasn't the time to stand up and say "I won't consider this legislation". They'd have been basted in the press. Saying they'll consider it as you said doesn't mean they vote for it.

The best case the NRA/gun owner's have for influencing local elections is Dick Lugar. Long time Indiana GOP senator, 2nd longest tenure in the Senate and the NRA targeted him and he lost the primary for his 7th term. He had an "F" rating from the NRA and was a Republican and he's gone. If they can get him they can get about anyone in a red state and it proves they won't hesitate to do it either.

As Tip O'Neil said all politics is local politics and grassroots groups are very effective at that level. Most of those groups are on the left side of the aisle, but the NRA is one of them on the right.

I just hope we can pass something that makes sense. So far the NRA proposal, whether you like them or hate them, is the quickest and most effective way to protect our children at school, if that's in fact the goal. If your goal is gun control then it's not effective at all, but if so don't pretend your goal is to protect children. The best option we can implement right now for that is on the table from the NRA of all groups.

They're also not mutually exclusive. You can vote for it and still pursue gun control. I'm curious as to what reason will be given to not support it other than "it's not gun control". That's not a very good reason if the goal is to protect children now is it?

FWIW there are gun laws I'd support or at least tolerate, but I have no illusions that we can stop these attacks with a gun law unless that law is to start confiscating stuff. We can help on that end with some things, which is why I wrote the letter, but no amount of those can come close to matching good security at schools for insuring their safety.

[KeithKSR]

Keith the court angle just showed up in the 7th Circuit ruling Illinois' conceal carry ban unconstitutional. the ruling said Illinois has failed to show actual evidence of it improving public safety that would justify removing the right from its citizens. I agree that could be a pivotal decision.

This is why I was so wanting Obama out -- if he gets to pick any justices you can kiss that notion of rights and not privileges goodbye. Heller was 5-4.

I think a number of politicians saying "will consider all options" is just political expediency. It wasn't the time to stand up and say "I won't consider this legislation". They'd have been basted in the press. Saying they'll consider it as you said doesn't mean they vote for it.

The best case the NRA/gun owner's have for influencing local elections is Dick Lugar. Long time Indiana GOP senator, 2nd longest tenure in the Senate and the NRA targeted him and he lost the primary for his 7th term. He had an "F" rating from the NRA and was a Republican and he's gone. If they can get him they can get about anyone in a red state and it proves they won't hesitate to do it either.

As Tip O'Neil said all politics is local politics and grassroots groups are very effective at that level. Most of those groups are on the left side of the aisle, but the NRA is one of them on the right.

I just hope we can pass something that makes sense. So far the NRA proposal, whether you like them or hate them, is the quickest and most effective way to protect our children at school, if that's in fact the goal. If your goal is gun control then it's not effective at all, but if so don't pretend your goal is to protect children. The best option we can implement right now for that is on the table from the NRA of all groups.

They're also not mutually exclusive. You can vote for it and still pursue gun control. I'm curious as to what reason will be given to not support it other than "it's not gun control". That's not a very good reason if the goal is to protect children now is it?

FWIW there are gun laws I'd support or at least tolerate, but I have no illusions that we can stop these attacks with a gun law unless that law is to start confiscating stuff. We can help on that end with some things, which is why I wrote the letter, but no amount of those can come close to matching good security at schools for insuring their safety.

The most likely retiree with Obama at the helm is Ginsburg, she will feel safe getting out before Obama leaves office so the SCOTUS balance does not shift beyond 5-4. I don't see any of the five conservative justices retiring by choice as long as Obama is president. Barring some kind of health issue I think they will try to hang on until Obama is out of office.

I think there will be a lot of people in Congress that will also be looking hard at the issue of video games. I gotta wonder how one would ban them and not have some first amendment issues to deal with in some form or fashion. Like movies you can place ratings on them, but if people buy them for their kids it is beyond the control of Big Brother to control their usage.

Watching the news tonight and the "first responders" to the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy said Lamza committed suicide as soon as they arrived on the scene. That is a powerful statement that can be used by those who think their should have been armed security within the school.

We had a School Resource Officer (SRO) for six years the position was funded by Clinton's initiative to put officers in the schools. We had an incident at school and the SRO talked the kid with the gun into giving up his hostage, had the SRO not been there we could have lost a lot of lives before police could come in and clear the building. We changed a lot of the ways we did things after that, and have changed some things again since the Sandy Hook spree. Unfortunately we have no SRO funding and no armed responder within the building. The SROs we had, two different gentlemen over the years, got along well with our students and were not feared by the students. We did DARE for a couple of years and KSP personnel came into the building without students fearing them due to being armed, we have a conservation class taught by the Ky Dept of Fish and Wildlife, the officer will bring weapons into the school.

I have a hard time figuring out why people object to having trained, armed individuals on hand to protect their kids. It is places without armed individuals on site that end up making national headlines when some nut kills multiple people.

Historically mass murders that have racked up the biggest numbers in the US have come by way of explosive devices. Oklahoma City, 9/11 and the Bath School Disaster (Andrew Kehoe) are the three deadliest attacks and all came by way of explosives. It isn't just firearms that are used.

The assault weapons ban was in existence from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004. During that span Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States ) lists nearly 30 well known school shootings while the ban was in effect. They list 18 since the ban was lifted. In what I don't consider to be a coincidence the bulk of these occurred in 2012, even though many of those listed involved no fatalities or were suicides that did not involve others, this was an obvious ploy to skew the numbers.

I'd like to see a study done into the possible correlation between some of the medications that children take today for things like ADD, ADHD, etc among some of the school shooters. Any medication that messes with the brain's chemistry could have long term effects that we are not yet aware of, I know one side effect of a lot of these meds are suicidal thoughts.

I have a tough time justifying more laws after Fast and Furious, where the Obama administration issued an executive order that they themselves violated along with lots of other laws and have never taken responsibility for in front of American courts. We also have a lot of laws on the books that are not enforced, or are often dealt away in plea bargains. Drug dealers get caught with small amounts of drugs and a gun, they plea bargain it down to misdemeanor possession all the time.

[BigBluePappy]

I have not had the opportunity to try and have the "gun talk" with the kids due to the parents wishes. I respect that.

You're background sounds a whole lot like mine; started hunting with my Dad and Uncles at the age of 8, got to carry a gun (unloaded) at 10 so they could observe my habits with gun and started carrying a loaded gun at the age of 11.
Shooting was another thing, have been a shooter since the age of 7.


Pappy, most children injured by guns occurs when they have not been taught about firearms. Children properly educated are less likely to be injured by them at the homes of friends as well.

My grandparents kept firearms, in fact one of the shotguns I have used to be kept loaded behind my Grandmother's bedroom door when I was a kid. Dad had a shotgun until I turned 13, when we then had multiple guns after I got my first shotgun at that age. My kids have grown up with firearms in the house.

The big key to safety was not keeping things locked up, but educating the next generation.

[KeithKSR]

You're background sounds a whole lot like mine; started hunting with my Dad and Uncles at the age of 8, got to carry a gun (unloaded) at 10 so they could observe my habits with gun and started carrying a loaded gun at the age of 11.
Shooting was another thing, have been a shooter since the age of 7.


Quality family time also.