“Mostly Harmless”

Clayton Cramer on the new gun control bill:

“I read it and it is mostly harmless.”

Read it again. It is not mostly harmless, unless you mean that in the sense of “mostly peaceful.”


If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Published by


2A advocate, writer, firearms policy & law analyst, general observer of pre-apocalyptic American life.

10 thoughts on ““Mostly Harmless””

  1. Could you clarify the hazard part? The three extra days for a juvenile background check? Or the addition of dating relationships to domestic misdemeanor disqualifiers? Or writing into statute something that is already BATF regulation?

    1. “Could you clarify the hazard part?”

      Yes, I can. I thought I gave you the link to the analysis of NYSRPA. I apologize if I didn’t. But to repeat myself…

      “The three extra days for a juvenile background check?”

      First, it’s extra days for adult background checks, not juvenile (you were aware that juveniles cannot purchase firearms from FFLs, right?). Second, it’s ten days, not three. Business days, which could mean a 14 calendar day waiting period.

      And, given the reiteration of NYSRPA, it’s an unconstitutional infringement of a SCOTUS-recognized fundamental constitutional right not subject to infringement merely on the basis of an alleged “compelling government interest.”

      And why should the rights of adults be limited that way? What and who were you at twenty years of age? I was a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force, and carried a full-auto M-16 in the course of my accepted duties. I supervised, and was responsible for, the actions of other military members, and keeping international communications systems on-line. Was I too young to be allowed to purchase a firearm without background checks and a 3-10 waiting period?

      And let us address background checks generally: A system of preemptively requiring a person to prove his innocence before being allowed to exercise a “fundamental constitutional right.”

      Did you pass — and pay for — a background check before exercising your First Amendment right to ask me to explain my position? SCOTUS says you need no more to pass a Second Amendment background check, than to pass a free speech background check.

      “Or the addition of dating relationships to domestic misdemeanor disqualifiers?”

      That’s another problem, based on a vague pseudo-definition of “dating partner” that fails to define little things like “recent” or “serious.” Was a one night stand with wild sex serious? Or were three dates with nothing but a good night kiss long enough? Was last month recent, or was ten years ago recent? Or forty years ago?

      Define “recent.” The bill didn’t.

      And again the NYSRPA reiteration of fundamental constitutional right not subject to infringement based of an alleged compelling government interest applies.

      “Or writing into statute something that is already BATF regulation?”

      Please specify which “something” of which you speak. Do you mean the redundant definitions on straw purchaser or trafficking, where they at least changed the penalties?

      Or are you speaking of the changed definition of “dealer” from someone who derives a livelihood from selling arms, to some who sells a single gun, ever, for a profit?

        1. Sure. All you have to do is not get married to a mentally unstable woman who attacks you, forcing you to defend yourself. If it happens anyway, you hope you don’t get a Southern judge who convicts you because “men don’t hit women n matter what.”

          That’s not a hypothetical. And he was beaten to death after being disarmed by the Lautenberg Amendment,

      1. Recent or serious are indeed serious problems best avoided by avoiding misdemeanor violence. This is easy to do.

        I can no longer get to that version of the bill which I thought said three business days to check juvenile records (those before 18, which are often sealed).

        1. You could have done a simple congress.gov search for S.2938.

          It’s initially 3 business days. At that point, if NICS thinks there could be something else worth looking into, they can extend it another 7 business days.

  2. The background check system which is of dubious benefit verifies that you are a law-abiding person and those are the only people that enjoy protections of the Bill of Rights. Prison inmates enjoy no freedom of speech, warrantless search, etc. The expansion to mental hospital commitments was an unavoidable consequence of destroying the mental health system in the 1960s.

    1. I’m going to ask you to pay me $25 dollars so I can run a background check on you before I allow you to exercise free speech here again.

      See, I have to play it safe by assuming that you are a criminal until you prove otherwise.

Leave a Reply to Bear Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.