Kamala Harris for Supreme Leader Against Guns

In an effort to woo over the dozen people supporting Eric Swalwell, Kamala Harris has decided to go even more nuts on gun control.

She also discusses this in more detail on her website.

An estimated 1 in 5 gun purchases in America occur without a background check. These dangerous sales go through because the federal government does not consider most gun sellers that operate online, at gun shows, or out of their garage as being a “dealer” of firearms.

First of all, how will she know who has sold more than five guns in a year?  What traceability will she have to know who is breaking that law?  How will she make sure they do background checks?

Personally, I’d love for the ATF to go back to licensing “kitchen table dealers” and not requiring a business premises for an FFL.  With more and more internet sales of guns, let people get FFL’s and work out of their homes with nothing more than a computer and gun safe in their garage.  But I have the feeling that’s not what she is going for.

Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers and dealers that break the law and take the most egregious offenders to court—regardless of whether they’re protected by the Protection of Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Oh good, she wants to violate the PLCAA.  Don’t you love it when a Presidential Candidate runs on which laws they want to violate?

If Congress fails to repeal the PLCAA within her first 100 days, Harris will act herself. Under our plan, any willful and serious violation of federal, state, or local law will lead to a license being revoked. This includes conduct the PLCAA often protects, such as violating negligence laws by selling a gun to a straw purchaser, violating public nuisance laws by supplying dealers that consistently sell guns used in crimes, or violating unfair business practices statutes by marketing assault weapons to children in video games.

So she wants to repeal the PLCAA and destroy the gun industry with lawfare.

If a gun dealer is found breaking the law, guess what?  They lose their licenses.  It’s hard to prove that they knew they were breaking the law, but it’s not impossible.

Lastly, “ violating unfair business practices statutes by marketing assault weapons to children in video games” seems like an insane stretch.  So if Call of Duty features a guy carrying around a SCAR, does President Harris have the right to send the DOJ to shut down FN?

It is a federal crime for gun makers and dealers to willfully violate federal, state, or local law, and Harris will hold them accountable if they endanger our kids and communities. While the PLCAA may prevent victims of gun violence from taking bad actors to court, it can’t stop the federal government.

So when the Sandy Hook lawsuit fails, she wants the Federal Government to shut down Remington.  That’s tyrannical.

As someone who lives, eats, breaths, and sleeps ATF, trust me, the ATF has been doing a lot of the F.  Especially considering just how F’ed bump stock owners were by the ATF’s focus on F, and redefining what constitutes a machine gun.

I’ll get back to the Trump bump stock disaster in a moment.

I had to look up the thing about making fugitives no longer prohibited persons.  I just filled out a Form 4473 on Good Friday and question 11.d. “Are you a fugitive from justice?” is still there.

Kamala Harris is a Democrat running for office, so I can guarantee with 100% accuracy that she is lying.  Especially about guns.

In February 2017, the Trump Administration quietly narrowed the definition of “fugitive from justice” for purposes of determining when a person is prohibited from buying a gun. Now, a gun sale is not denied to a fugitive from justice unless it can be shown that individual fled a state “for the purpose” of avoiding charges. Proving a person’s state of mind is incredibly difficult, particularly given a background check must be completed within three days.

So the truth is a little more complicated and actually makes some sense.

Both Pennsylvania and United States law make it illegal for a fugitive from justice to purchase or possess a firearm. In order to enforce this prohibition, the FBI maintains a database of people who are ineligible to purchase a firearm that includes people who the FBI believes to have active arrest warrants. Until recently, the ATF and the FBI used different criteria in determining who met the definition of a fugitive from justice. The FBI has traditionally used a broader definition which included anyone with an active arrest warrant. The ATF, however, adopted a more limited reading of the phrase and defined a “fugitive from justice” as a person who both had a warrant for their arrest and traveled to a different state from the state in which the warrant was issued. Thus, the use of the ATF’s definition would result in fewer people being included in the Government’s database of prohibited persons.

I don’t think this is all that terrible if you look at questions 11.b., 11.c., and 11.d., together (paraphrasing):

Are you under indictment for a felony?  Have you been convicted of a felony?  Have you crossed state lines with an arrest warrant?

So felons or those under indictment for felonies are still prohibited persons.  So is buying a gun across state lines with an arrest warrant.

What this allows is for someone with a non-felony arrest warrant to buy a gun in the state they reside in.

When you consider that a bench warrant can be issued for unpaid parking tickets, making people who have active arrest warrants because they didn’t show up in court to pay the fine for their busted tail light prohibited persons is a little steep.

The impact has been disastrous: In the year following the change, the number of gun sales blocked by the “fugitive from justice” prohibitor dropped by roughly 65%. That’s thousands of gun sales being approved to individuals with outstanding arrest warrants.Harris will reverse the change and take executive action to prevent those with outstanding arrest warrants from purchasing guns.

Especially since Kamala Harris wants to give Nikolas Cruz, Nidal Hassan, and Dylan Roof the right to vote for her.

So what Harris said was mendacious bullshit.

Close the “boyfriend loophole” to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns.

People convicted of domestic abuse shouldn’t be able to buy guns just because they’re not married to the person they abused. Harris will take executive action to close the loophole.

I’ve covered this a lot before.  It’s not just married, it’s also cohabitating or share a child with a person that makes in intimate partner.

This is opening the door to men becoming prohibited persons because of one bad date if the date accuses the man of making her feel threatened.

This is just part of the gun safety agenda Harris will pursue as president. In addition to enacting universal background checks, renewing the assault weapons ban, and repealing the PLCAA, Harris will fight to make gun trafficking a federal crime, ban high capacity magazines, and prohibit those convicted of a federal hate crime from buying guns.

Fantastic, becoming a prohibited person under President Harris will include the crime of continuously referring to Catlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning as a “he” or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

But back to her 100 days statement and bump stocks.

One would think that she would need Congress to pass an AWB.

Trump and his bump stock ban opened the door for that not to be the case.

Remember that the new standard for bump stocks is:

The final rule clarifies that the definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

That’s crap because you pull the trigger every time, you just don’t move your finger.  The gun is moved against your finger, which is why the ATF let them go the first time.

What does this rule change mean for an AWB.

Imagine if the ATF decides that the new definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes parts interchangeability with machine guns.

If you can put any machinegun part on your gun, viola, it’s a machine gun.

Your AR-15 is now a machinegun because you could drop an M4 bolt or barrel on it.  Hell, it probably has an M4 bolt and barrel (with a pined flash hider) on it already.

A simple, minor rule change can now ban a whole class of guns.

This is the danger door that has been opened and can be walked through for people like Harris, and is hard as hell to close.

The Democrats are not just running on taking your guns but destroying the entire gun industry through executive fiat too.




4 Replies to “Kamala Harris for Supreme Leader Against Guns”

  1. Soo… She wants to to prevent “fugitives from justice” from purchasing firearms (too bad it’s already illegal) but I’m sure she is on board with Bernie’s convicted felons should vote from prison mantra. I need duct tape and single malt.

  2. “An estimated 1 in 5 gun purchases in America occur without a background check. “

    And one in four gun sales in her home state of California don’t go through the mandated background check.
    For some reason she doesn’t mention that.

  3. It is a federal crime for gun makers and dealers to willfully violate federal, state, or local law, and Harris will hold them accountable if they endanger our kids and communities. While the PLCAA may prevent victims of gun violence from taking bad actors to court, it can’t stop the federal government.

    Again with the demonstrable falsehoods regarding the PLCAA.

    It’s very clear in the Act: If a firearms manufacturer, distributor, or retailer violates local, state, or federal laws, PLCAA doesn’t apply.

    Hell, it’s right in the acronym: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    The Left keeps on claiming that PLCAA is a blanket shield for all kinds of illegal activities. That is a flat-out lie; all PLCAA does is prohibit civil liability lawsuits for lawful activities undertaken with due diligence. If a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer breaks the law, PLCAA won’t save them. If they are negligent, PLCAA won’t save them. Contrary to claims, manufacturers have been sued, and have lost or been forced to settle, under PLCAA if they sell guns with known safety defects (i.e. the Walker FCS on Remington bolt-action rifles). It would be the same if they engaged in illegal activity

    Kamala Harris, of course, knows all of this. She’s counting on her supporters’ ignorance of what PLCAA is and isn’t (and even what the acronym stands for) to help float her into the Oval Office.

    That’s a common theme with the Left….

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.