NRA spokesman: I personally could support expanded background checks

posted at 12:01 pm on April 3, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

NRO’s Andrew Johnson notes that the NRA rushed to counter its own spokesman for the new school-safety initiative shortly after this aired yesterday on CNN, but Asa Hutchinson’s “support” for expanded background checks was, shall we say, nuanced.  While Hutchinson did say he was “open” to expanded background checks, his idea for expanding them runs counter to the proposals circulating in Congress at the moment:

HUTCHINSON: — on my task force — on my task force, we had varied opinions on that issue, but it was not the focus of our task force. And so it’s — it’s — if you’re looking at my personal opinion on background checks, I hope Congress can look at a way to do better in having good records in the NICS system, or the system that does the background checks, so that we actually have information as to who’s been adjudicated mentally ill, that we can have information, better information, on convicted felons and that we make sure that when someone purchases a firearm, that it’s going to someone qualified to own it. We’re all for that.

As to how they work out…

BLITZER: So what I hear you saying is that you’re open to expanding background checks…

HUTCHINSON: (INAUDIBLE)…

BLITZER: — personally.

HUTCHINSON: Yes. Absolutely. I’m open to expanding background checks if you can do it within a way that does not infringe upon an individual and make it hard for an individual to transfer to a friend or a neighbor, somebody that, here in Montana, and have a casual sale. We don’t want to infringe upon those rights, either.

And so I’m more focused on the safety and protecting the kids in the school. I think our initiative will do that more than going down this path of passing stricter laws that somehow we pat ourselves on the back and think we’ve done something for safety when we haven’t.

Perhaps the relevant point here would be to ask how many of these shootings take place after “casual sales,” and whether a demand to route those through a licensed gun dealer would prevent them. That certainly wasn’t the case with the Newtown shooting, in which the mass murderer actually was prevented from purchasing his weapon by the background check, and stole them from his mother instead before murdering her as well.  While I think that the inconvenience of having to pay a dealer for a background check before a “casual sale” may be overstated a bit, it sounds a lot like the other “solutions” offered in the wake of the shooting, none of which would have prevented it or even slowed it down.

Therefore, Hutchinson’s support for expanding background checks sounds more like support for the federal government to enforce the laws they already have on the books.  We already know that federal agencies do almost no follow-up on failed background checks, and Joe Biden claims it’s because they don’t have the resources to do so.  If that’s the case, then how will forcing people to involve gun dealers in transactions with family members and friends improve the situation?  The issue here isn’t gaps in the law — it’s lack of resources for enforcement of the laws on the books now, and perhaps lack of will.  At the very least, we should at least enforce the laws we have before passing more that we won’t enforce, either.

That may be why, as the New York Times reports today, that Senators are skeptical about the push to expand background-check requirements:

With Senate Democrats still struggling to line up support, the success or failure of President Obama’s four-month campaign to overhaul gun laws will most likely revolve around a single provision: a proposal to expand federal background checks for gun purchases.

Background checks, both advocates and independent researchers say, would have a bigger potential effect on gun violence than any other measure under consideration — including the much-discussed assault-weapons ban, which has little chance of passing in Congress. Proposed federal gun-trafficking laws and changes to mental health databases would have a marginal impact on gun violence, experts say.

But even though around 90 percent of those polled in public surveys support background checks, the fight for it and the rest of the first major piece of gun control legislation since 1993 faces a difficult test in the coming weeks. On Tuesday, Senate aides said that formal debate and substantive votes on the gun issues would probably slip to the week of April 15 — a setback considering that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, had pledged that it would be the first issue to come up when Congress returns from spring recess next week.

The NYT offers up the false “40%” statistic, fronting it with a “federal officials estimate” fig leaf:

But no background check is required for about 40 percent of gun purchases, including those made online or at gun shows, federal officials estimate. Requiring checks for those purchases would be the single most effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, advocates say.

There seems to be a lot of false claims being made on behalf of this bill, including the idea that it would have prevented the shooting that its advocates exploit to push it.  That’s reason enough to slow this down, so that the real issues of current enforcement of existing law and the failure to follow up on flunked checks can start to take precedence.

Update: Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post gives the 40% claim three Pinocchios … again.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Was that the sound of unemployment ticking up ever so slightly?

CurtZHP on April 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/

Well done, Upchuck.

Galt2009 on April 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Update: Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post gives the 40% claim three Pinocchios … again.

Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios.
Three Pinocchios

What does it say about a political ‘movement’ that can only Forward it’s oppressive agenda on the backs of murdered school children, lies, strawmen and false narratives?

Galt2009 on April 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/

Well done, Upchuck.

Weasel who’s lapse strays from his talking points to reveal the underlying truth.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM

So stupid.

Why conservatives proceed from the assumption of good intentions by Democrats is beyond me.

The only relevant question to ask is, “Would the proposed law have prevented ANY of the events that have prompted this effort ?”

The answer in every case is a resounding NO.

Democrats want one thing and one thing only – to pass some law, really ANY law, that can be lumped under the heading of “gun control”. In fact, the least significant the law can be, the better. Because then it will have no impact on anyone and they can come back later and say their NEW proposal will be the same, when it most assuredly will not.

I’m not necessarily against the use of background checks for private transactions, but why ? What’s the point ? Has that ever been a problem ? And wouldn’t a family transfer or other private transaction be subject to the people involved ? Wouldn’t they know best if this would be a wise transfer – not some far off DC beaurocrat. And if they suspect it would NOT be wise, then they wouldn’t exactly go in for a voluntary background check, now would they ?

Just stop already.

deadrody on April 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM

That’s reason enough to slow this down, so that the real issues of current enforcement of existing law and the failure to follow up on flunked checks can start to take precedence.

That wasn’t the intent of this attempt at gun-grabbing. The monsters at the Brady Group and the West Wing were all high-fiving each other when the body count of children killed at Sandy Hook went to 20. Even today, the rat-eared devil says shame on us for forgetting the victims of Sandy Hook and doing something now by passing the AWB.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Galt2009 on April 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Well, maybe it’s not registration registration. Or not universal universal. Or both.

PersonFromPorlock on April 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Overwhelming Majority of Gun Owners Oppose Universal Background Checks

Hmmm, and to Barry, the Dems and their low-info voters, that matters how?

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

What does it say about a political ‘movement’ that can only Forward it’s oppressive agenda on the backs of murdered school children, lies, strawmen and false narratives?

Galt2009 on April 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The New American has no idea what you’re talkng about and, for that matter, is incapable of even reading your post:

The New American

OhEssYouCowboys on April 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Overwhelming Majority of Gun Owners Oppose Universal Background Checks

Akzed on April 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM

I assume you mean legal gun owners. None of the gun-grabbing legislation comes close to dealing with those in places like Chicago, Detroit, or New Orleans where gangs are routinely shooting one another and innocent bystanders. I’m guessing they were not polled.

Which gets back to the main point. Any of the legislation being considered does nothing more than make it more difficult, expensive, and onerous to be a legal gun owner in America.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM

What does it say about a political ‘movement’ that can only Forward it’s oppressive agenda on the backs of murdered school children, lies, strawmen and false narratives?

That it will take every opportunity to use them as a means to the end of achieving its goals.

Whatever it takes will be done to disarm the nation.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Background checks, both advocates and independent researchers say, would have a bigger potential effect on gun violence than any other measure under consideration — including the much-discussed assault-weapons ban, which has little chance of passing in Congress. Proposed federal gun-trafficking laws and changes to mental health databases would have a marginal impact on gun violence, experts say.

What an absolute pantload. All these mass shooting s lately have been by mentally unbalanced people and yet the “experts” say that changes to the mental health databases would only “marginally” impact gun violence. Yet background checks are the magic elixir, even though, as Ed pointed out, the background check stopped the Newtown shooter from obtaining his own firearm.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

This universal background check is pure crap – as proven in Colorado where the Dems already forced it on us.
1) Under the Colorado law, I have to pay to run a background check on my own son, even if I’m just letting him borrow a gun for the weekend. Or if I die and leave my guns to my son. That’s nuts.
2) How would the government know whether ownership of a gun has been transferred in a “casual sale”, in which case a background check would be required? The ONLY way they would know is if they have a government registry of all current gun ownership. Without the government registration, they cannot prove that an illegal sale took place – if you don’t know who currently owns the gun, you can’t prove it changed hands.

Universal background check IS a backdoor government registration.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Here is an article about the number of background checks since bho was elected.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/70291049-background-checks-gun-purchases-under-Obama
L

letget on April 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

The answer is NO! The NRA needs to dump Hutchinson immediately and clarify their official position.

Pork-Chop on April 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Without the government registration, they cannot prove that an illegal sale took place – if you don’t know who currently owns the gun, you can’t prove it changed hands.

Universal background check IS a backdoor government registration.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

This.

chemman on April 3, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Wasn’t Asa Hutchinson a former Congresscritter?

Why would the NRA hire a stick-his-finger-in-the-air poitician to be their spokesman?

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/

Well done, Upchuck.

Galt2009 on April 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

You see, like the term “illegal immigrants”, you’re not parsing the words correctly. A registry is a thing but registration is an act. I know, it doesn’t actually make any sense, but pointing out the difference between verbs and nouns seems to be what passes for logic these days.

Fenris on April 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM

That it will take every opportunity to use them as a means to the end of achieving its goals.

Whatever it takes will be done to disarm the nation.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

True, but look at what a wonderful job gubmint has done in drying up the sale of weapons on the black market………Oh wait!

VegasRick on April 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Wasn’t Asa Hutchinson a former Congresscritter?

Why would the NRA hire a stick-his-finger-in-the-air poitician to be their spokesman?

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I should say a “stick-his-finger-in-the-air-to-see-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing poitician

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM

My main gripe about the form 4473 is that it lists the serial number of the firearm being purchased. As I understand it, that form is to stay in the hands of the licensed firearm dealer for 20 years or turned over to the BATF if the dealer ceases business. All those form 4473′s are effectively the data for a national gun registry.

The term “background check” sounds innocuous.

Simple question: Describe a background check process that would not lead to a national gun registry database?

I’m guessing if “universal background check” passes, the first step will be for all the 4473′s in existence to be entered into a database.

Universal Background Check = National Gun Registry

chigger76 on April 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM

The concept of a background check is not per se awful — fact is that some people should not own guns. But I do not trust any government agency at any level to administer a check in a way that promotes safety and respects my 2A rights.

Citizen-003528 on April 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM

While I think that the inconvenience of having to pay a dealer for a background check before a “casual sale” may be overstated a bit,

Then quit thinking Ed. What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is it that is so incomprehensible to you?

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Really this isn’t Rocket Science, I’ve done Rocket Science, things I made are orbiting the earth, on the moon and on Mar’s. This definitely is not Rocket Science.

SWalker on April 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Wow, Hutchinson is really bad at politics, isn’t he? What he appears to be actually saying is that he would support BETTER background checks, maybe higher reporting standards for the states, dealing with mental health issues… what Blitzer obviously wants from him is a statement that could be marketed as “NRA Spokesman Supports UNIVERSAL Background Checks.” That is how this will be spun, and no, it doesn’t matter to the low-info news consumer what Hutchinson actually said or meant. Once the low-info voter hears that, he says, “Huh. I guess background checks are a Good Idea whose Time has Come, and there’s a Consensus on them. Why the hell aren’t they the law already?”
And Hutchinson just serves it up on a silver platter, like he’s never seen a weaselly journalist before, and has no earthly idea that political opponents will use your own words against you. Sheesh. No wonder he looses elections.

unclejack on April 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

True, but look at what a wonderful job gubmint has done in drying up the sale of weapons on the black market………Oh wait!

Ah, but it is a much easier job to first go after law abiding, legally registered gun owners, many of whom will be compliant in turning over their guns, lest they face the wrath and punishment of gubmit. Those that resist will be handled, and all other illegal criminal elements will be pursued as needed.

Alas, like the poor, the criminal element will always be with us. Its just that the Left is making every effort to turn law-abiding citizens into potential criminals.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

HUTCHINSON: — on my task force — on my task force, we had varied opinions on that issue, but it was not the focus of our task force. And so it’s — it’s — if you’re looking at my personal opinion on background checks, I hope Congress can look at a way to do better in having good records in the NICS system, or the system that does the background checks, so that we actually have information as to who’s been adjudicated mentally ill, that we can have information, better information, on convicted felons and that we make sure that when someone purchases a firearm, that it’s going to someone qualified to own it. We’re all for that.

.
.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–

.

No, really ….. what else is there to say?

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

GAYS / GUNS / AMNESTY!!

I’m sorry, I don’t trust the NRA leadership not to sell out to incrementalism.

THIS comment just feeds that skepticism.

PappyD61 on April 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Alas, like the poor, the criminal element will always be with us. Its just that the Left is making every effort to turn law-abiding citizens into potential criminals.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Bingo! I was talking to a friend of mine that wants an AR but is waiting for the prices to come back to earth. He told me if the gubmint bans them he already has one lined up on the black market at less $ than the normal price. I guess he is just trying not to become a criminal but will in our overlords eyes.

VegasRick on April 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Overwhelming Majority of Gun Owners Oppose Universal Background Checks

Hmmm, and to Barry, the Dems and their low-info voters, that matters how? hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

My point was to juxtapose this NRA tool’s quote with a quote from GOA.

Akzed on April 3, 2013 at 1:08 PM

My point was to juxtapose this NRA tool’s quote with a quote from GOA.

Point taken. A reason I’m a member of GOA and not the NRA.

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Bingo! I was talking to a friend of mine that wants an AR but is waiting for the prices to come back to earth. He told me if the gubmint bans them he already has one lined up on the black market at less $ than the normal price. I guess he is just trying not to become a criminal but will in our overlords eyes. VegasRick on April 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

And your friend is, I hope, aware that if and when federal laws create a large enough increase in non-background checked sales, FBI/ATFE/DEA/ICE/DHS will be conducting the biggest hot gun sale since Fast & Furious.

They’ll call it, Operation Former Upstanding Citizen Roundup.

Akzed on April 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM

it’s lack of resources for enforcement of the laws on the books now

No it’s not! Kalifornia has TWENTY MILLION in the bank from fees paid by gun purchasers. Yet the DOJ here is THREE YEARS behind on doing followups.

As for “improving” the NICS system; the libs can’t even run the system they have now!

GarandFan on April 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Firearm? I had a firearm but I melted it down to make a suit of armor for one of my cats. Sorry.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2013 at 3:00 PM

So, NRA, I guess that cold, dead hands thing is no longer operative?

There seems to be a lot of false claims being made on behalf of this bill,

Now, where have we seen that happen before…?

rrpjr on April 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Can you first explain Hutchinson’s current ties to the NRA? He is not a spokesman for them as far as I can tell – I could be wrong.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on April 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM

These NRA guys need to check with the ACLU today. Seems these background checks as written and proposed are fishy when it comes to individual privacy and the law.

I have a feeling that this assclown will soon be filling out job applications listing Wayne LaPierre as a former boss.

kens on April 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM

FYI _ I checked with the NRA and Asa Hutchinson is NOT a spokesman for them. Anytime anyone needs clarification the the NRA’s position on any topic, call NRA Public Affairs. That is also a good place to check alleged sources claiming to be associated with them. It is hard enough to keep the image clear without false attributions of spokespeople claiming to speak for the Association.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on April 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM