Marion Hammer dodged a bullet

Remember when it came out that the Vichy NRA was paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars for Florida lobbying, and that she wasn’t reporting it as required by law?

$929,000 over 5 years. For working “an average of five hours per week.”

$714.61 per hour. Unreported.

Florida Senate resolves gun lobbyist complaint
After correcting four years of compensation reports for one of the entities she represents, Florida’s top gun lobbyist Marion Hammer has been cleared of wrongdoing by the Florida Senate.

Sen. Perry Thurston, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat, had filed the complaint against Hammer, accusing her of violating Senate lobbying rules for failing to report her compensation for more than a decade.
[…]
“I was told that I did not have any additional filing requirements as a lobbyist. Thus, in good faith I relied upon that advice,” Hammer continued.

Bull shit.I can’t believe they let her get away with that. When I first heard the claim that she hadn’t been reporting compensation. I checked it for myself.

It took me about 1 minute to find what the NRA said it paid her.

It took me about 2 minutes to find her state reports… of no compensation.

I took maybe another 2 minutes to find the applicable state laws.

5 minutes of work that Hammer — lobbying on laws — couldn’t find for a decade. She couldn’t even check the FAQ, which explains that compensation must be reported.

The nicest thing you could say about her claim is that she’s too frickin’ incompetent to analyse and discuss law as a lobbyist, if she can’t even keep up with lobbying law. Which might explain why Florida recently passed several gun control laws.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Commenting on Compromise

Over at The Zelman Partisans, I noted that Davey Piglet’s “compromise” on semi-auto bans (NFA registration as machineguns) is no compromise, because firearm owners lose more, and gain nothing. A commenter disagreed.

I hate to piss in your Cheerios this early in the day, but I’m thinking that you’re the ones who are misconstruing the word “compromise.” While I agree 100% with your disparagement of placing autoloaders on the NFA register, compared to the statements of some of our wannabe Democratic Presidential candidates about outlawing and confiscating all such weapons, placing them on the NFA register is, indeed, a compromise.

What he describes is a compromise between victim disarmers. Piglet proposes a compromise of registration (for the submissive) vs. killing (Swallows) or imprisoning (Gillibrand et al) those who respect rights.

Victim disarmer Gillibrand demands total surrender or prison.

Psychopath Swalwell demands total surrender or death.

Piggy offers them the compromise of total surrender or NFA registration.

None of them offer a damned thing to firearm owners.

Please consider. They want a ban one way or another. At least some of them are literally willing to kill us. Currently, their grandiose dreams of a totalitarian paradise are stymied by the lack of registration. Except in some states, they don’t know who the owners are, where they are, what they have, or how much.

They don’t know who to imprison or kill, nor what to steal.

But, with those cards on the table, Hogg expects firearm owners to play their game. The gullible register their newly-defined machine guns…

…and when the next total ban comes along, the VDs think they’ll have a list with which to find those nasty gun owners.

Of course, except for the gullible few, they won’t really know. They definitely won’t know about the millions of stolen firearms in the wild, any more than they know now.

I decline these “compromises” that only take, and offer nothing. I particularly refuse an offer to register any hypothetical property to ease later confiscations.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

A new column over at The Zelman Partisans

Malicious Compliance Revisited
With registration schemes in the works, let’s imagine a humorous, purely hypothetical scenario.

Police State A passes a registration law.

RTWT

Particularly ambitious Simon Jesters could probably think of ways to start now.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

New Zealand Confiscation Update

The first month of the NZ MSSA Amnesty is past, and the results are in.

“Buyback” Events: 90
Firearms turned in: 10,242
Average firearms/event: 113

This isn’t looking good for the government. As previously noted, there are a rough-guesstimated 158,730 affected guns.

Overall running compliance rate: 6.45%

On average, with 250 scheduled “buybacks,” they need to collect 635 guns per event. They’re getting less than one-fifth of that: 17.8% of what they need.

ETA: It’s also worth noting that every time I get new numbers on buyback events, the average number of firearms turned in drops. Compliance is getting worse as the deadline approaches.

They’re on track to approximately match Australia’s 20% compliance rate.

Bear in mind that rate of compliance is based on my own calculations (based on actual payouts and the government’s estimate of how much it will cost) of 158,730 affected firearms. Other people are still tossing around estimates of 1.2-1.5 MILLION. If it is 1.5 million, the compliance rate is a hilarious 0.68% so far.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Explain the Difference

So we have the crowd claiming that if “we” don’t vote for Trump again, we’ll be saddled with a Democrat who will destroy Second Amendment-protected rights with bans, universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks, raising RKBA age limits, expanding the NICS database, ex parte confiscation orders, and bump stocks bans.

I want those people to explain to me how that’s worse than the guy who supports universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks, raising RKBA age limits, ex parte confiscation orders; who did sign a bill expanding the NICS database; who did ban bump-fire stocks by executive fiat; and supports a ban of semi-automatic firearms.

Then there are his appointee choices, like William Barr who similarly backed firearms bans and re-signed the BSTD ban to cover DOJ’s bureaucratic butt.

The only times Trump has been “pro-2A” was when he got it into his head to run for President as a Republican, and when addressing Vichy NRAAMs. Before 2015, he favored bans and other unconstitutional infringements of human rights. Not that he’s been elected, he has started implementing some.

On the actual “pro” side? He pulled the USA out of a treaty that had never been ratified anyway, and he signed a bill that repealed the Obama era executive order NICSing of some Social Security recipients without due process. But NICS expansion proposals he’s looking at would add them anyway, legislatively.

Assuming he waits for legislative action. Aide Kellyanne Conway says he’s thinking about doing all that by executive order, just as he bypassed Congress to ban bump-stock-type devices. “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”

Tell me exactly how I’d notice a difference between Trump — who acts like a another Dem President — and… a Dem President.

Tell me why honest, gun-owning voters shouldn’t look for a primary challenger who doesn’t view the Bill of Rights as demolition checklist.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

What; LaPierre needed more room for busty interns?

Even as news breaks of a class action lawsuit filed against the VICHY NRA for fraud and misspending, we learn that…

NRA mulled mansion for chief executive: report
The National Rifle Association (NRA) reportedly considered buying a $6 million mansion for use by CEO Wayne LaPierre.

The Washington Post reports that documents show that the gun-rights group discussed buying the Dallas-area house for its CEO but talks fell through. The dealings are now under scrutiny by New York investigators as part of an ongoing investigation into the NRA’s tax-exempt status.

Ackerman McQueen says the idea came from LaPierre, and they were “alarmed.”

The VNRA claims that it was AckMac’s idea as an “investment,” and the NRA killed the plan when it became known to LaPierre. So…

We’re to believe that someone in the VNRA’s public relations company suddenly decided, Hey! You know what would be great publicity for our New York-chartered, Virginia-based non-profit? Let’s buy their EVP a six megabuck mansion in Texas. Everyone will love that!

Either that, or a PR company took it upon themselves to act investment advisors and property managers.

I’m forced to admit that I find AckMac’s line a little more believable.

And I’m sure they were looking for properties with a pool.

Nice intern if you can afford her. Oh, wait. VNRA MEMBERS paid for her.