A Serious Violation

Despite the critical mid-term elections that are rapidly approaching, the Democratic Congress has seemingly forgotten its base (and agenda) and is instead taking orders from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Two Congressional committees are currently planning hearings on H.R. 2296/S. 941, the NRA-drafted “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” which would severely limit ATF’s ability to shut down corrupt gun dealers.

Under the legislation, it would be “all but impossible” for ATF to revoke the licenses of rogue dealers, even when they repeatedly break federal gun laws. The legislation would require ATF to show that a federally licensed dealer knew the specific law he/she was violating and intentionally disregarded that law, an unusually high and difficult burden of proof. The bill also creates a classification system for violations, but the ATF would only be allowed to revoke a license based on a “Serious” violation. “Minor” violations, such as “losing” hundreds or perhaps thousands of guns, would not warrant revocation of a dealer’s license. H.R. 2296/S. 941 would also allow dealers who have their licenses revoked to transfer their remaining inventory to their "private collection" and sell these guns for 60 days without conducting background checks on purchasers.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), had arranged a hearing on S. 941 for September 14, but chose to postpone it because of a “scheduling conflict.” Some speculate it was because of pressure from the Obama administration and grassroots activists who were outraged about Leahy’s priorities. A new date for the hearing has yet to be scheduled. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) is also planning to hold a hearing on H.R. 2296 in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, date and time TBD.

Gun rights advocates have argued that H.R. 2296/S. 941 is necessary to prevent “heavy-handed” enforcement by the ATF. The NRA claims that it is all too common for the ATF to revoke licenses for “insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.” The problem is they have not produced a single example of a case where this occurred.

In truth, the ATF rarely uses its power to revoke federal firearm licenses. In 2007, the agency conducted 10,000 inspections and revoked only 100 licenses—which represents just 0.1% of the total population of federally licensed firearms dealers in the U.S.

So why is the NRA pushing H.R. 2296/S. 941? It is well aware that just 1% of federally licensed gun dealers are the source of more than 57% of guns recovered in crimes nationwide, and this small group of extremely bad apples is who the ATF targets for revocation. The NRA wants to protect their profits, and some of these dealers have extremely close ties to the gun lobby.

Sandy Abrams, a former NRA board member, was cited for more than 900 violations of federal law before his Valley Gun license was revoked in 2006. At the time, Valley Gun was ranked 37^th out of 80,000 gun dealers in the country in terms of the number of guns it sold that were later linked to crimes. Almost 500 crime guns were traced back to Abrams’ store in one four-year period alone. The Department of Justice referred to Valley Gun as a “serial violator” and stated that Abrams had “endangered the public by failing to account for hundreds of weapons.” Abrams saw it differently. “Forms fall behind the counter. Or maybe someone throws it away,” he explained to authorities.

It’s clear why the NRA wants H.R. 2296/S. 941 to become law, but the bigger question is why are Democrats moving the legislation? One would think that Democrats would want to motivate their base to vote in the November elections. Gun owners have not traditionally been part of that base. Over the past three presidential elections, voters in gun-owning households have voted Republican 61%-63% of the time. Nor have Democrats received significant largesse from the gun industry. 78% of the money the NRA has contributed in the 2010 election cycle has gone to Republicans. And progressives are certain to take offense at Democrats’ support for an organization that has consistently undermined their agenda (i.e., see the DISCLOSE Act).

Additionally, it seems odd that Democrats would take action on legislation that law enforcement has serious concerns about. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) says H.R. 2296/S. 941 would “significantly impede criminal investigations and diminish the ability of law enforcement to protect their communities from the crime and violence associated with the illegal use of firearms.”

The IACP recognizes the obvious: In a country in which illegal firearms trafficking is epidemic, the ATF needs more authority and resources to put corrupt gun dealers out of business, not less. Concerned citizens can call Speaker Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100. Tell her to cancel hearings on the "ATF Reform and Firearms Modernization Act" and table this dangerous legislation immediately.

What's so Funny About Shooting Government Officials?

When National Rifle Association (NRA) President Charlton Heston hoisted a rifle above his head at the organization’s 2000 convention and shouted the words “from my cold dead hands,” there was no joke about it. He was conveying a serious threat by expressing the organization’s belief that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government—“one bullet at a time”—when they deem it has become “tyrannical.” Since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court gave legal backing to this dangerous “Insurrectionist Idea” in 2008, there have been a significant number of violent acts by those who fear and hate our government.

The NRA, however, now appears to find its advocacy for insurrectionism humorous. In a bizarre new video released in late August as part of its “Trigger the Vote” campaign, a group meeting is being held to discuss what should be done about the government coming to take away people’s guns. An old woman in the group, in an expletive-filled tirade reminiscent of Heston, states that if the government wants her gun, “they’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.” Martial arts expert/celebrity Chuck Norris then busts into the room and tells the participants that “there’s only one way to protect our rights,” by registering to vote.

The use of Chuck Norris as a voice of reason is curious, to put it mildly. Just last year, Norris told conservative radio/TV host Glenn Beck, “I don't use [guns] for hunting. I'm not a hunter. But the thing is, it's for protection ... If the government decides to become a tyrannical government, our guns are to protect us against that. And that's really what the Second Amendment is all about.” Norris even warned in March 2009 that a “second American Revolution” will happen “if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.” Norris clearly buys into the insurrectionist ideology his new ad so casually dismisses.

The “Trigger the Vote” campaign is a sharp departure from previous NRA rhetoric, and raises questions about the organization’s motives. The NRA’s embrace of insurrectionism—formalized through its amicus brief in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case referenced above—has received significant press attention as of late, particularly after armed Americans began to appear at town hall meetings, presidential speeches, and other political events. The NRA might be trying to distance itself from this type of behavior with the “Trigger the Vote” campaign. It is also undoubtedly attempting to reach out to more moderate swing voters before a critical mid-term election.

Even long-time NRA supporters, however, are beginning to question its wisdom on the subject of guns, democracy and freedom. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has done much to advance the gun lobby’s agenda, recently ran ads against Republican Senate candidate and Tea Partier Sharron Angle that strike directly at the Insurrectionist Idea. In one ad, the president of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada states that Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” are a clear call for “armed resistance” and denounces them as “crazy” and “way over the line.”

Two weeks after Reid’s “Over the Line” ad ran, the NRA chose not to endorse him in the upcoming election. This prompted some to speculate that the NRA was punishing him for rejecting their extreme ideology. The NRA denied this, however, claiming that its decision had to do with Reid’s support of Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The bottom line, however, is that no matter how hard you try to mask insurrectionist ideology with a public relations campaign, if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. If the NRA is sincere in its desire to condemn insurrectionism, it should have its legal counsel issue a statement making it clear that the Second Amendment does not provide individuals with the right to shoot government officials when they feel “oppressed” or sense “tyranny.”

Until then, when the NRA chooses to joke about this topic, all Americans should ask: What’s so funny?