Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Not by a long shot
Next Post: Rauner forms new PAC, but can he succeed?
Posted in:
* From Guns Save Life…
Governor Patrick Quinn, the clueless, inept and bumbling Illinois chief executive, signed HB-1189 yesterday – a bill to end private transfers of guns between individuals. The bill also mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 72-hours of the loss, effectively penalizing gun owners a second time if their guns are stolen and they don’t detect it right away.
The only people affected by this legislation are the law-abiding Illinois residents.
“Guns are a plague on too many of our communities,” Quinn said at his big press conference.
No, governor. Anti-gun politicians are a plague on our entire state, handicapping the good guys against those criminal predators who ignore basic societal norms against murder, rape and robbery.
So, why wouldn’t gun owners want to know if a potential buyer has a valid FOID card? I don’t get it. It’s called responsible gun ownership. And how, exactly, does this “handicap the good guys?” I don’t get it. How do you know a buyer is a “good guy” if you can’t be certain that his or her FOID card is actually valid?
Also, if your gun is stolen, why wouldn’t you file a police report?
And, finally, first violations of these two new statutes are petty offenses, similar to a traffic ticket. They’re hardly “round ‘em up and throw away the key” laws.
If you say you’re a law-abider, then abide by and respect the law. Simple.
*** UPDATE *** From the Senate Dems…
Under the new FOID Card verification procedure, there is no penalty for failing to contact ISP to confirm a valid FOID Card.
Instead, there’s a “safe harbor” provision for people who do properly confirm with ISP. In the event that firearm is later misused, the owner who properly contacted ISP cannot be held liable for the misuse of that firearm. The bill specifically states that failure to comply with the new “requirement” shall not be punishable as a crime or petty offense. That was key in getting some members to support the legislation.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Not by a long shot
Next Post: Rauner forms new PAC, but can he succeed?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The best part of following the law is that if you do, you are granted civil immunity should you sell or transfer a gun to a “criminal predator.” That’s a really nice, big carrot.
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:54 am
Rich said it all, no further comment necessary from this sirius individual.
Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:54 am
–The bill also mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 72-hours of the loss, effectively penalizing gun owners a second time if their guns are stolen and they don’t detect it right away.–
How large is the universe of “law-abiding gun owners” who think it’s an Orwellian intrusion to report a gun theft or loss within 72 hours of discovering it?
You’d call the cops if your TV was stolen, wouldn’t you? Or your car? File an insurance report, at the least.
Just who are the responsible lawful people who wouldn’t immediately report the theft of their killing machines?
Illegal gun dealers, that’s who. And that’s who this law is after.
How in the world does the NRA defend this junk?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:57 am
So what provisions are in place to check these details if I sell my handgun to a person in another state that their state does not require them to have a FOID card? Hum? I believe Iowa does not have the FOID process…
Comment by Siyotanka Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:57 am
You aren’t going to satisfy people like these lunatics who think looking at their gun in a funny way is a danger to the universe. These kinds of people give the legitimate gun rights advocates a bad name. Somehow in the eyes of these types of people the laws shouldn’t apply to gun owners.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:05 am
Siyotanka, a private party can not sell a handgun to a resident of another state. The transaction must take place through a licensed FFL in the buyer’s state of residence.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:10 am
*** So, why wouldn’t gun owners want to know if a potential buyer has a valid FOID card? ***
I do. Current law requires me to keep a record of the private sale for ten years. That record includes FOID information of the buyer and the serial number of the gun, etc. I also note that my FOID card has an expiration date on it.
So as I understand the new law, if I want to sell a shotgun to my neighbor, I need to have the ILSP run a background check on him, even though the ILSP ran one when he applied for his FOID card? Is that correct? If so, it seems odd. Reaffirms my belief that the value of the FOID card is overstated.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:11 am
I’ve avoided commenting on this one because I don’t really have an objection to either new law as they currently stand. My concern is that they will be morphed into something much more objectionable over time. No, I don’t trust that the current majority has my best interests as a lawful gun owner at heart.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:12 am
What kind of person has guns so carelessly stored that one could be stolen and the person not be aware?
If somebody breaks into my house, I expect it is going to be pretty obvious.
If people are breaking into your house and stealing your stuff and your are not aware of it, you have much bigger problems than just some ticket for not reporting a theft.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:13 am
By the way, I do agree that Quinn is clueless, inept and bumbling.
But just not for the reasons stated by the gun nuts.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:15 am
Slick Willy, the only issue with the old way I can see is that it doesn’t take into account FOIDs that have been yanked for cause but not collected. The new way has the risk of being turned into a new back door sales registry.
If the call only is used to determine the validity of the buyer’s FOID, I’m OK with it. But if they start asking for details on the item being transferred…
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:15 am
I read the “hysteria” from the pro-gun lobby and I think how sad their lives would be if this issue went away somehow. If there over-the-top reaction to any sensible legislation isn’t indicative of our country steeped in a “gun-culture”, nothing is.
Comment by Knome Sane Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:17 am
>>>Just who are the responsible lawful people who wouldn’t immediately report the theft of their killing machines?
Illegal gun dealers, that’s who. And that’s who this law is after.
Comment by Hedley Lamarr Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:19 am
I also note that the new law goes into effect January 1, 2014, but does not require the ILSP to have an internet system in place by July 1, 2015. Ever try to call the ILSP to ascertain the status of your FOID card application? Good times ahead for FFLs that can process background checks.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:24 am
Everything Boch’s organization puts out is borderline insanity, no surprise with this one.
I do get a chuckle out of their signs along the interstate though, keep up the good work guys.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:24 am
If I were a pro-gun control advocacy group, I would start redistributing these bursts of lunacy verbatim.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:25 am
Ok, so here is my problem respecting this new law. If press reports are correct the ISP shall immediately inform the private seller if the private buyer is ok to own gun. I assume this means whether or not the buyer has a valid FOID. The ISP can not do anything immediately when it comes to FOID cards. Issue, revoke,… anything. I have never received notice that my card is up for renewal. This is in violation of current statutes. Cards are required by current statute to be issued in 30 days if there are no prohibiting factors. Good luck with that. Only convictions of specific laws prohibit you from firearm possession. Ask any ISP trooper if being convicted of any felony prohibits you from getting an FOID card. Bet 8 times out of 10 you would get a yes. Heck, ask a trooper how a person with a FOID card can legally transport a weapon and ammunition at the same time. The variety of answers will astound.
So a perfectly legal buyer is standing in front of me with cash in hand but because of the inability of the state to follow its own laws I can’t complete the sale.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:26 am
I think it would be simple in this day and age of immediate access to information via the internet, etc. Each FOID card could have an icon or it that could be scanned and sent to the ISP server that would confirm the validity of the card. Most folks have smart phones that can scan the icon. What’s the big deal. That way I can be secure in the knowledge that the FOID is valid and up to date.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:29 am
==No, I don’t trust that the current majority has my best interests as a lawful gun owner at heart.==
The “current majority” has produced a society with more than 300 million privately owned firearms. More guns than TV sets, more guns than cars.
There has never been a time in history, anywhere, where gun rights for individuals were as broad as they are in the United States today.
Yet the dystopian paranoia is unabated in some circles.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:32 am
I have not read the legislation, but are there exceptions for the transfer (sale or gift) between family members?
Comment by Spidad60 Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:34 am
There’s hysteria on both sides Rich, how many Chicago areas Dems were freaking out about CCW, claiming it would turn their cities into the “Wild West” ? It hasn’t happened anywhere else, and it won’t happen in Chicago. Please make some effort to control your anti-gun bias and call out both sides when their behavior is over-the-top.
Comment by Boog Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:39 am
–Also, if your gun is stolen, why wouldn’t you file a police report?–
That’s just crazy logical talk there.
That is a really bizarre press release, even for extremists. I agree with MrJM, it would probably help the organizations who advocate for responsible gun ownership to get this literature word for word.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:44 am
From the bill: “the person must report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft.”
I’m a very pro-gun person, It aggravates me to see people who either haven’t read the bill or are deliberately dropping words to provide their side a better position. It says “obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft”. That phrase is very important. That said I am most certainly report the loss or theft of a firearm as soon as I realize that loss has occurred. I can see the less scrupulous out there using this as a way to make straw purchases, sell the guns off and then tell the police they were stolen.
As far as the FOID validation. Depending on implementation of this I don’t have a problem with it. Making sure I’m selling to a person that can legally own it seems like a good thing to me.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:01 am
==Please make some effort to control your anti-gun bias ==
You don’t read this blog much do you? Rich reports on it all. It’s evident you have a bias though, since you seem to think that any reporting on anything calling out people like this indicates somebody is anti-gun. Why is it that ANY criticism in the gun arena automatically get somebody labeled anti-gun? Forgive me if I can be a rational human being and see all sides of an argument and not succumb to the hysteria surrounding the topic. People aren’t gun nuts simply because they cherish the right to own a gun and people aren’t anti-gun simply because they may agree with some gun law. People need to grow up and stop with the absolutes.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:03 am
Private sell provisions aren’t effective until January 1, so…buy/sell now.
Comment by Jaded Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:07 am
@Spidad60 yes there are exceptions for gifts to family. It specifically lists what family members are eligible.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:08 am
Not to side with the anti-gun hysterics, maybe this release should read “criminal predators and Australian baseball players.”
Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:10 am
===Please make some effort to control your anti-gun bias===
Um, dude, I’m a gun owner.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:13 am
I looked and couldn’t find a definitive answer, isn’t a valid driver’s license required to buy a car? So someone selling a car would need to determine that? If that’s true, that certainly doesn’t sound unreasonable.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:19 am
===call out both sides when their behavior is over-the-top.===
As someone on the other side, I can attest that I’ve been called out and even deleted by Rich on this issue. Thankfully not banned. Yet.
You must be new here Boog.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:21 am
Might be worth it to play a little game here. Substitute your “credit card” for “gun”. Then follow the law based on how you would act if your credit card was stolen, or you were passing on the number to someone for a purchase. You wouldn’t even need a law to act right. Logic would dictate. I’m not sure most gun owners have a problem with this. They are very conscientious for the most part and would follow a path of logic.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:23 am
In a way, I see this law as an admission that the FOID system doesn’t really work the way it was intended. It is a relatively minor inconvenience as it currently stands for responsible gun owners, but the argument about the “slippery slope” history of gun control laws and the fears of abuse by the current majority do have some merit.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:27 am
===argument about the “slippery slope” ===
And this is a slippery slope to what?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:29 am
===I need to have the ILSP run a background check on him, even though the ILSP ran one when he applied for his FOID card? ===
No.
The ISP just checks to see if the FOID card is still valid. That’s it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:31 am
===The ISP just checks to see if the FOID card is still valid. That’s it.===
Zero objection from me on this, I think it’s a very good idea. If we’re going to have FOID, let’s use it for something beneficial.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:41 am
*** The ISP just checks to see if the FOID card is still valid. That’s it. ***
As noted by Leave a Light on George, the ILSP has a less than stellar record when it comes to FOID issues. This reeks of a leglislator passing a law simply to make it harder to own a gun. S’pose time will tell.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:47 am
I am reminded of a situation last year where a stolen gun was used in a crime, and the owner was unaware that it was stolen. Since it was recovered by police in the next town over, the owner’s own police department refused to file a report. The owner was unable to do the responsible thing and have his gun reported as stolen. I believe that nasty rabid NRA had to get involved to help to poor homeowner out when his own police department would not.
Comment by Bill Wick Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:48 am
Bill W.,
You believe the person when he/she claims to be “unaware it was stolen”?
How is a gun stolen, and the owner not aware?
It is more likely that somebody broke in and stole a gun, with the owner not knowing of either the break in or the gun theft or is it more likely the owner sold it to a bad guy and then alleged it was stolen when it was used in a crime?
Seriously, who does not know when somebody breaks into their home?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:51 am
no opinion from Todd. is he on vacation? or unusually shy?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:59 am
== This reeks of a legislator passing a law simply to make it harder to own a gun==
I don’t see anything remotely in this bill that would make it harder for anybody to own a gun. Because you have to check to see if somebody’s FOID is still valid? That’s too much of a burden for people? This is just another comment that indicates that ANY gun law is seen by some as some sort of conspiracy to take people’s guns away. When people oppose stuff like this it makes me less inclined to support their legitimate causes.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:08 pm
==People aren’t gun nuts simply because they cherish the right to own a gun and people aren’t anti-gun simply because they may agree with some gun law. People need to grow up and stop with the absolutes.==
This. Rich, maybe you could add this statement as a postscript to every gun related thread you put up here from now on?
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:30 pm
===maybe you could add this statement as a postscript===
I doubt it would help. The nuts never seem to think they’re nuts. That’s why they are nuts. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:31 pm
Skeeter, yes I believe this person. I know this person, so dies Todd. I believe it was stolen from him by a relative, a cousin if I’m not mistaken. Nobody mentioned a home break-in, that was an assumption on your part.
Comment by Bill Wick Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:32 pm
“Yet the dystopian paranoia is unabated in some circles.”
I also find it insincere, because I don’t think there was this uproar when conservatives like Reagan supported banning assault weapons. To me it’s just like spending and debt; it’s only horrible when the other guy or gal is doing it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:17 pm
While I think this isn’t as bad as some make it out to be (if we think about the process of calling the state police, etc: Hey, whats so hard about a simple phone call?)
Everyone here bashing the “gun guys” ignores our existing problem with the FOID system. If you rail against the guys not liking this law I ask you to do this… Get a FOID app, fill it out. Send it in, and see how long it takes to get it back.
If its not back in 30 days call the number the ISP give you to check on the FOID status. Sit on hold for 60-90 minutes, get hung up on, call back. go on hold again, maybe get a status maybe not. Then wait another 15-30 days and repeat.
All of this while existing state law says the ISP has to issue FOIDs today in 30 days. Period. We have reports of them running 60-120 days normally with often a call to a Rep requried to get it “moving”. People with FFLs getting delayed 90 days in “background check” for a FOID.
This is what the gun guys think off when we think of calling the ISP to validate a FOID. That is a big part of the problem we have with the law.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:25 pm
I see no problem in what Guns Saves Lives is saying here. That’s politics.
Comment by Fan Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:33 pm
I’m OK with the law as written. Personal impact will be minimal since I don’t sell firearms. And the immunity is a nice feature if I were to sell one.
As far as GSL, their rhetoric can be way over the top but there is usually a germ of truth somewhere in there.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:35 pm
I would absolutely check the validity of the FOID for a buyer unknown to me, or only passingly known, providing I can do so quickly and without a hassle. But to give or even sell a gun to my nephew, daughter, or grandson, or even best friend who I know very well are quite responsible individuals, get real. It ain’t gonna happen, law or no law. It would be an insult to them, and to me, actually.
Comment by Skirmisher Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:44 pm
So what happens if you follow this new law, and the guy’s FOID is supposed to be revoked? What happens then? Are you obligated to set up the sting or go about your business?
Comment by High speed Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 2:01 pm
===What happens then?===
You don’t sell the gun.
I mean, really, what the heck is your problem?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 2:03 pm
Skeeter, “Seriously, when does someone not know when someone breaks into their home?” Me. I don’t lock my house. If the dogs don’t scare someone away, they can walk right in, pick up something, and walk out.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:19 pm
Plain and simple this law protects the person selling the gun. Let’s say someone wants to buy a gun has the FOID card, but it is actually revoked because they committed a crime. Say they go out with the gun you just sold them and commit a murder. When the lawsuits start flying and you didn’t take time to check to see if they had a valid FOID, guess what your screwed.
Comment by Empty Suit Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:21 pm
=== If we’re going to have FOID, let’s use it for something beneficial ===
I agree. the ISP doesn’t have a good track record on revoking the FOID when appropriate. I’m not sure what happens to the guns if the FOID is voided. It wouold be nice if we knew that the guns would be secured if the person lost the right to purchase or possess, along with being able to determine if a gun could be sold to a FOID holder.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:24 pm
I actually thought these two were fairly reasonable bills.
As for the foid call it is a nice option for a private gun seller. Of course it is a given that with the past performance of ISP the calls will turn into Dante’s 9th level. However if ISP even gets close to competent on this it will be a nice resource.
As for the reporting while it is possible it could be misused by unscrupulous LE and Prosecutors. If that happens it will have to be addressed then. Otherwise it isn’t exactly onerous to get a police report within 72 hours.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:46 pm
You asked, Rich:
Why would we doubt that FOID card held by an individual is valid?
Do we ask people to call in driver’s licenses presented for identification to assure they are valid? No, we assume that if everything seems normal as a reasonable person would do, that everything is on the up and up.
For instance, when I present my driver’s to Enterprise to rent my car, they don’t call to make sure it’s valid.
So why all the extra hoopla over FOID cards?
As for lost and stolen: Our objection is that law-abiding folks will be victimized a second time if they fail to report a lost or stolen gun - especially one they are unaware is lost or stolen.
This bill, as you note, is largely a nothingburger.
But we fight even slight encroachment of our rights.
Thanks for putting us up on CapFax.
John
Comment by John Boch Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:47 pm
===But we fight even slight encroachment of our rights.===
As do most groups, but y’all are like the boy who cried “Wolf!”
You admit here that it’s a “nothingburger” bill, whatever that is, but to your members you declare that the law will “end private transfers of guns between individuals.”
By your own admission, you told your own members a deliberate and complete lie. Feel good about your agitprop?
Disgusting.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 3:53 pm
Concerns are being raised now as to whether FOID card owners’ privacy could be endangered if a person enters a query in the ISP’s online database under the false pretense of transferring a firearm, and gathers instant private FOID card information that can be used for other purposes.
“Right now, licensed firearms dealers are required to check on a FOID card status before making the transaction,” Senator Dale Righter (R-Mattoon) told Illinois Review. “But with Senator Raoul’s measure, could private information now be given out to anybody indicating they’re transferring a firearm. Yes, that could happen. That bill never should have become law.”
Comment by this Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:06 pm
===Do we ask people to call in driver’s licenses presented for identification to assure they are valid? No, we assume that if everything seems normal as a reasonable person would do, that everything is on the up and up.===
John, a DL’s primary purpose is not identification for the private sector, it’s governmental documentation. When a DL is presented to a police officer during a traffic stop, isn’t one of the first things done a check that it is still valid?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Earlier this year, State Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Burr Ridge) introduced and passed SB 27 banning the Illinois Attorney General from making public the list of FOID card owners. The urgency for the protection arose after a group in New York indicated the residence and location of the state’s firearms owners public on an Internet website map.
But with the online FOID database query included in HB 1189, any FOID card owners’ name will be accessible online and open to be made public.
Comment by and this Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:09 pm
===any FOID card owners’ name will be accessible online and open to be made public===
Pretty sure you’ll have to have their FOID card number to access anything.
Just chill, man. And maybe consider that you might be too paranoid to own a gun in the first place.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:11 pm
Rich
–Pretty sure you’ll have to have their FOID card number to access anything.–
That would be the smart way to do it. However do we know that? I would think that along with the number ISP would need to display the name and perhaps even a picture to prove it is valid. Otherwise couldn’t i take Rich Miller’s Foid and represent myself as Rich Miller and get approval. If the Photo on your foid is printed as bad as mine it might actually work.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:21 pm
Never said i’m male or female, never said I owned a gun. Who is the paranoind one? Just chilln’
Comment by and this Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:21 pm
=Pretty sure you’ll have to have their FOID card number to access anything….Just chill, man. And maybe consider that you might be too paranoid to own a gun in the first place.=
Rich, if I recognize that there are two perspectives here, i.e., ability to access the data as a user with all the security constraints in pace AND the ability to access the data otherwise (i.e., intentionally going after it, being “given away” due to stupidity, etc.), would you consider me paranoid or just looking at security from two perspectives?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:30 pm
Sorry…should have been all “security constraints in pLace….”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 4:30 pm
No, we certainly have to ensure this data isn’t misused or falls into the wrong hands. There is no need for a national database of gun owners. No sir. That is a completely un-American idea.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/nra-hates-gun-owner-lists-except-its-database.html
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 5:16 pm
I don’t see where it is the government’s business that I either lost a firearm or had one stolen. The only valid reason to tell the cops you had a firearm stolen would be to get a police report for insurance purposes.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:27 pm
What’s wrong with the NRA keeping a database of firearm owners? They are in the business of promoting firearm ownership and the shooting sports. The government, on the other hand, is in the business of suppressing individual freedoms, including the right to keep and bear arms. I certainly trust the NRA with my personal information way more than I trust the government.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 9:43 pm