Fraudulent FFL, Chris Kitaeff, agrees with brady campaign

[Midwest]

In this country mandatory background checks on all gun sales are inevitable regardless if you support them or not.

Even though a UBC might or might not pass on a Federal level, it is being passed one state at a time courtesy of Bloomberg and company and big money......
.

 

[jerkface11]

Am I just not seeing the gain in giving the anti gun crowd what it wants? It won't stop them. They'll just move on to the next item on their checklist. You'll then declare that one to be inevitable.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Am I just not seeing the gain in giving the anti gun crowd what it wants? It won't stop them. They'll just move on to the next item on their checklist. You'll then declare that one to be inevitable.

I agree a UBC will not stop the anti-gun crowd. What I am proposing in not “giving the anti gun crowd what it wants”. Since there are going to get it, let them expend their resources on getting it implemented. It is a dead-end that does not lead to bans and confiscation. Preventing a UBC is never going to win the war against the anti-gun crowd. Increasing the number of people who own guns, and number of non-gun owning people who believe gun owners are responsible and reasonable, is the best tactic for the long term defense of the RKBA. Examples of better areas for us expend our resources on are increasing CCW in all states, increasing convenient opportunities for recreational shooting in areas where they are limited or non-existent, and craft our message to avoid attaching right-wing political rhetoric to the RKBA that alienates those liberals and moderates who are neither pro or anti gun. Many pro-gun people seem to forget that not all liberals and moderates are anti-gun. On a personal note, don’t accuse me of “caving” and implying there is no point where I will make a stand (“You'll then declare that one to be inevitable”) against gun grabbers. We are not going to win the fight by attempting to continue convincing people pro-gunners cannot be defeated in the legislature. That strategy has been moderately successful but future demographics make it perilous. We are going to win the fight by increasing the number of pro-gunners and neutrals.

 

[jerkface11]

Giving them "universal" checks IS a major victory for them. It makes gun ownership that much more difficult and will NOT help to increase the number of gun owners.

 

[danez71]

Giving them "universal" checks IS a major victory for them. It makes gun ownership that much more difficult and will NOT help to increase the number of gun owners.

Im not speaking for Nom....

Your post indicates that youre not understanding.


Its not the Govt's job to increase the number of gun owners. Its ours.

California, for ex., has had UBC for decades but leads in gun ownership (or darn near the top). NY has too and has a very strong shooter base


As Nom said, BC's don't hurt the desire to own guns - Just as showing ID to buy beer hasn't hurt peoples desire to buy beer.

....Or getting a journalist pass/credentials hasn't reduced the # of people wanting to report at the White House press conferences. It hasn't hurt free press or the 1A.


If we come across... or are effectively portrayed, as we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers, it only strengthen the other side whether justified or not.


Nom is raising concept that it may not be the best use of our resources to defend that image.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Giving them "universal" checks IS a major victory for them. It makes gun ownership that much more difficult and will NOT help to increase the number of gun owners.

It would be a hollow victory for the anti-gun crowd. A victory that will expend their resources while not moving them closer to their objective of banning and confiscation. A UBC only makes it much more difficult for disqualified buyers to possess guns, and creates a minor inconvenience for qualified buyers. You and I agree that a UBC will not help to increase the number of gun owners. I don't believe I ever said a UBC would do that. What I said was stopping the fight against a UBC would enable more of our resources to used in other ways to increase the number of gun owners.

 

[Hookeye]

The way it is now is good enough.
New guns go through NICS.
Individual sales of used, seller assumes some responsibility (I won't sell to somebody I don't know, or if a stranger, they have to have proper ID and carry permit- which legally proves the state has declared them a proper person).
I should be able to gift a gun to a family member without any freakin extra $ or hassle (assuming that said family member would be able to legally purchase a firearm).

I see no reason for further legislation, when the laws we have now are not enforced.

 

[Hookeye]

Indianapolis just passed a law that makes reporting the theft of a firearm within a certain time period MANDATORY.

Really?

Who wouldn't report a theft, let alone a theft of a gun......rather quickly?

Anybody with common sense would.

So who is this law really aimed at?

A certain culture, where family member and friends get stuff stolen, or say they do after doing a straw purchase.......knowing full well who has the gun they used to own.

They support known dangerous persons (outright, or out of fear).
Either way their culture sucks.

And please tell me how making an extra penalty, for already enabling a gang banger.......is suddenly going to make the light bulb come on and or scare somebody into compliance?

Indy has murders all the time. This new law won't do a dang thing to stop it.

The cultural problem is far too nasty to be affected by another half arsed law.

Universal background checks won't stop such nonsense either.

Sorry folks, you're little perfect picket fence world doesn't exist. Laws won't help, because a lot of people out there suck. Many of them BTW are called lawmakers.

 

[Justin]

This is more than one issue, all of them sort of jumbled together, so let me see if I can unpack everything that's going on in this thread.

1.) Chris Kitaeff is evidently a small-time FFL holder with few actual industry contacts, and no real evidence of being someone who actually buys and sells guns for a living, other than being listed in ATF's registry of FFLs.

2.) He's found a niche for himself by spouting Bloomberg's talking points regarding gun control.

3.) He not only supports so-called "universal background checks," he also supports implementing a law that would change the current policy of allowing background checks that don't return a proceed in 3 business days to go forward with a default proceed to a default deny.

4.) It would be trivial to find out if he's an actual FFL, or if he simply holds the license for reasons other than dealing in firearms a la the VPC's Josh Sugarmann. (Seriously. Pick up the phone and call him. Ask what he charges for some minor gun smithing work or a transfer.)

My take on it? He's a Fuddish, small-time nobody with bills to pay who's willing to repeat Bloomberg's talking points for a pat on the head and a payday that probably covers his cable bill.

Nom de Forum is likely right in that UBCs are a legal inevitable eventuality* but I'm conflicted as to whether we should fight them or simply accept them and use the resources for other pro-gun battles; for instance legalizing suppressors or instituting nationwide CCW reciprocity.

On the other hand, while fighting them wastes our resources, it also forces the other side to waste theirs, which is a plus.

What I do have a serious problem with is Kitaeff's *cough*Bloomberg's*cough* support for implementing a policy of default deny on any background check that doesn't come back as "OK" within the 3 business day time limit stipulated by the law.

Advocacy of the "default deny" concept is nothing short of a the removal of a person's civil rights without due process, something that anyone with respect for a society of laws should have deep-seated and serious misgivings about. The "default deny" position is essentially a presumption of guilt without putting the accused through the process of charging and convicting them of a crime.

As such, I would strongly caution anyone who is thinking of supporting UBCs, or related laws to examine their beliefs when it comes to advocating for NICS default denials.


*Widespread civil disobedience notwithstanding, not that I would advocate breaking the law.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom de Forum is likely right in that UBCs are a legal inevitable eventuality* but I'm conflicted as to whether we should fight them or simply accept them and use the resources for other pro-gun battles; for instance legalizing suppressors or instituting nationwide CCW reciprocity.

On the other hand, while fighting them wastes our resources, it also forces the other side to waste theirs, which is a plus.

Sure “it also forces the other side to waste theirs” but I don’t see it as a plus if it is wasting ours just as much. The vast majority of American’s who do not self-identify as pro-gun will, if they look at the issue of UBC, see the fight as one between those proposing addition safety for all and those opposing additional safety for the benefit of a selfish special interest group. I think it more efficacious that our image in the fight for the RKBA be that of protecting a right many people don’t exercise but can conceive of someday exercising rather than our image being that of a selfish special interest group opposing safety. We cannot teach enough firearm and hunter safety classes to counter-act the damage from the latter image.

Advocacy of the "default deny" concept is nothing short of a the removal of a person's civil rights without due process, something that anyone with respect for a society of laws should have deep-seated and serious misgivings about. The "default deny" position is essentially a presumption of guilt without putting the accused through the process of charging and convicting them of a crime.

I agree. So in addition to preventing the image problem I mentioned above we should not fight to prevent UBC but politically manipulate the plan to prevent “default deny” so we appear to be both pro-safety and protecting other peoples opportunity to someday exercise their rights. This should not be that hard. People can be led to understand a “default deny” policy maybe reasonable in some circumstances for receiving a privilege such as a driver license because of bureaucratic snafu, but a “default deny” policy is unreasonable and unacceptable if it prevents the exercising of rights. We can win the argument that the burden must be on the Government to complete a BC on time and that no burden should be put on citizens because the Government fails to do so. Just doing that will save our resources and make us appear very reasonable while we let the anti-gunners have a hollow victory and neuter their accusations that we are unreasonable, selfish, right-wing extremists.

 

[Hookeye]

Not agreeing with UBC isn't an image problem.
Owning any gun is.

 

[happygeek]

It is not “they will not accomplish anything”, it is they will not accomplish at anywhere near the level of success what many supporters think they will accomplish.

Cook and Ludwig, hardly shrills for the NRA, tried their best to show that the 1968 GCA and the Brady Bill accomplished something. They were unable to:
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2000/08/study-finds-brady-act-ineffective-reducing-homicides
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JAMA_Brady_2000.pdf

 

[jerkface11]

You think you're going to make Bloomberg run out of resources by letting him win? As I said all giving in on this would do is let them move on to the next item on their checklist. And this is bad enough. If I want to trade guns with my best friend or buy one from my brother I shouldn't need government permission to do so. Nothing good comes from not fighting them on this issue.

 

[danez71]

Jerkface11 said,

You think you're going to make Bloomberg run out of resources by letting him win?

No one said anything like that.

Where are you getting that from?

 

[JSH1]

Nom de Forum is likely right in that UBCs are a legal inevitable eventuality* but I'm conflicted as to whether we should fight them or simply accept them and use the resources for other pro-gun battles; for instance legalizing suppressors or instituting nationwide CCW reciprocity.

I have said more than once here that UBC's could be used as a bargaining chip to get some things we want like nationwide CCW or suppressors without a tax stamp. However, the more states that pass UBCs the less our chip is worth.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree a UBC will not stop the anti-gun crowd. What I am proposing in not “giving the anti gun crowd what it wants”. Since there are going to get it, let them expend their resources on getting it implemented. It is a dead-end that does not lead to bans and confiscation

UBCs are not a dead-end. As long as we are basing the firearms record keeping on the structure established by the 1968 Gun Control Act, UBCs are a prerequisite step to firearms registration (which is often a prerequisite step to confiscation and bans).

Once UBCs are law, you've got an unenforceable law. Short of catching someone in the act, you have no way to prove when a transfer occurred and millions of firearms that are many steps removed from a 4473. As it stands now, NICS makes hundreds of thousands of denials every year - and there is a paper Form 4473 that offers all the evidence needed to prosecute those attempts; but the number of prosecutions isn't even 4 digits.

So if UBCs become law, the next hue and cry will be all those cases they can't prove a violation of UBC occurred. And those cases are going to happen. Once they have a few examples, the drumbeat will be that all guns must be registered in order to prevent this.

Right now, two of our major priorities should be 1) driving a stake through the heart of the "sporting purposes" nonsense and 2) overhauling the 1968 records system to replace it with something that better protects gun owner privacy.

In theory, UBCs don't have to be privacy invasive or something that needs registration to work. Software guys work with all kinds of access and verification codes that don't require the personal information on a 4473. From a marketing standpoint, you could even sell the change as "updating" the dated 1968 system. If you look at the difference between the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin UBC proposed in 2013 and the UBC proposed by Tom Coburn, you can see a glimpse of what I am talking about - though Coburn's system was flawed and tried to use the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure.

Of course, even if you could come up with a UBC that protected gun owner privacy, removed the lever for firearms registration and did away with the 1968 GCA infrastructure, gun owners would still freak out that there was some hidden gun control, that the NRA was selling out, etc. etc. You can look at Sen. Coburn's recent S.2002 bill for a great example of a pro-gun bill that some gun owners reject just out of mulish fear.

But I think it is important we realize that the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure for FFLs and recordkeeping is not freedom friendly. And no system that extends it to everyday citizens is going to be either.

 

[Pushrod]

We shouldn't compromise, EVER!

We started out with this nice chocolate cake called the Second Amendment, which told the Federal Government that the keeping and bearing of arms by American's cannot be infringed.
Years later the Feds tell us that we need to compromise with some REASONABLE restrictions. They just want a little slice of the cake and tell us 'look, you still have most of that big, rich, chocolate cake. Giving us a little isn't going to hurt your Rights... much.'
We grudgingly oblige.
A little time goes by and the FedGov hungrily eyes our remaining cake and again tells us, 'just give us another small slice of your Rights, you won't miss it, you have so much!' And like retards, we do.
This goes on and on until we are holding a plate with just a small slice left, and still the FedGov covets it, for they know they cannot obtain ultimate power without all of it, and again like small-brained little monkeys we think if we just give them another small slice they will leave the rest alone.

They will never leave the rest alone. They want it all! We will compromise the protection of the Second Amendment out of existence if we keep repeating the past mistakes over and over again expecting a different outcome this time.

UBC didn't get passed after a horrific and cowardly murderous rampage by a psychopath at a Connecticut kindergarten school; it won't now unless we convince ourselves that we must compromise a little more to keep the FedGov wolf from breathing down our necks as it eyes that remaining piece of cake.

The FedGov shouldn't be in the business of regulating a Right and UBC are just bad news all around. They will be another chunk of freedom lost.

If people are worried about bad/crazy people getting weapons, then maybe those bad/crazy people shouldn't be out and about in the general public where knives, guns, clubs, rocks, fists, and every other weapon used against another human being since the dawn of mankind is available. If we can't trust them because of past behavior, then they should be locked up now.

Y'all do know, that the worst school massacre was committed with something other than firearms? Look up the Bath schoolhouse massacre in Michigan.

 

[Nom de Forum]

UBCs are not a dead-end. As long as we are basing the firearms record keeping on the structure established by the 1968 Gun Control Act, UBCs are a prerequisite step to firearms registration (which is often a prerequisite step to confiscation and bans).

While it is possible UBCs may be a prerequisite step to confiscations and bans, I do not agree that they are a unidirectional certain step to confiscations and bans. Bans and confiscations could be imposed without any type of registration, it merely take the stroke of a pen on paper. Prior registration would only make it easier but not much easier in a country like the U.S. The UBC can be a step toward a dead-end if other more important fights for the RKBA are won.

I really don’t have much more to say about a national UBC other than the following:

It is very probably inevitable.
Pro-gun people can fight to completely prevent it and lose, or accept the inevitable and work to make it as convenient as possible.
Fighting the UBC in the eyes of the neutrals is not image enhancing for the Pro-gun movement.
Ultimately the fight for the RKBA will be won by “numbers” not battles to continuously stalemate the Anti-gun people. Those “numbers” will consist of more people who want guns, more people who can be convinced they may someday want a gun, and by not scaring the bejezus out of moderates and liberals with flaming rhetoric, hair on fire posturing, and tying support for gun ownership to other politically conservative issues.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is no way UBCs don't lead to registration unless you get rid of the 1968 Gun Control Act paperwork. The idea that we should extend the already broken 1968 FFL system to every single person who has a firearm now while we control the process is like planning on doing a shoulder roll to break your fall after freefalling 6000 feet without a parachute. Maybe it helps on some level; but it isn't likely to change the ultimate outcome.

In the 2013 example, the people on the other side of that "compromise" were inveterate liars who deliberately negotiated in bad faith dozens of times before. Hell, two of their "compromise" offers were to do things that are arguably already required by the 1986 FOPA but which their jurisdictions had perverted and twisted into offering no protection at all. If someone's goal is to ultimately drown you in the ocean, compromise on how far you move into the ocean is never helpful.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There is no way UBCs don't lead to registration unless you get rid of the 1968 Gun Control Act paperwork. The idea that we should extend the already broken 1968 FFL system to every single person who has a firearm now while we control the process is like planning on doing a shoulder roll to break your fall after freefalling 6000 feet without a parachute. Maybe it helps on some level; but it isn't likely to change the ultimate outcome.

I never wrote that a UBC doesn’t lead to registration. Regards of that, if the federal government decides to confiscate guns whether your guns are registered or unregistered will make very little difference in 21st century America.

In the 2013 example, the people on the other side of that "compromise" were inveterate liars who deliberately negotiated in bad faith dozens of times before. Hell, two of their "compromise" offers were to do things that are arguably already required by the 1986 FOPA but which their jurisdictions had perverted and twisted into offering no protection at all. If someone's goal is to ultimately drown you in the ocean, compromise on how far you move into the ocean is never helpful.

You don’t seem to understand that we are already in an ocean and that battle for the RKBA has alway been in it. That ocean is composed of constantly shifting currents of individual personal political opinion. There is no ground to be taken and held by battle. There is only the battle to remain the dominating influence that moves the currents. It is a battle of maneuver, not one of static defense or attack at every opportunity. Attacking the opposition where it is strongest (the movement toward a national UBC) provides no strategic benefit and is a waste of resources. Increasing our strength where there is strategic benefit (creation of more people owning and considering it possible they may want to own guns) is where our resources should be primarily used. Any resources used with regard to a UBC should be for modifying it to be as benign as possible and not in an attempt to stop it. Our primary use of resources must be toward become the numerically stronger political force influencing the currents of the ocean of personal political opinion.

 

[jerkface11]

"Universal" background checks make firearms ownership more difficult. How does that increase the number of gun owners???

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I understood the ideas expressed by your analogy just fine. Do you understand where the current is going to take everyone once you lie down on UBCs? Your argument is that attacking them where they are strong is bad strategy; but once you've acknowledged UBCs are acceptable; how are you going to resist registration? If registration comes before groundbreaking new defensive technology (or even before the outlines of what is "dangerous and unusual" is well-litigated), you realize that bans will inevitably follow that? I say "inevitable" because human nature, politics, and a strategy of "Let's concede where it looks bad to fight" guarantees that.

This is why destroying the recordkeeping outlined in the 1968 GCA must be the first step of any "compromise". Even fence sitters who are responsive to gun control arguments will be receptive to the idea of updating an entirely paper system designed almost half a century ago.

Again, Schumer-Toomey-Manchin required a licensed CHL to pick up a privately purchased pistol at an FFL and fill out a Form 4473 - even though the same bill expressly excluded the CHL from having to undergo a background check. There is only one purpose for that - and it isn't to verify that the CHL is not a prohibited person. Unless you remove that system and replace it with one that better protects gun owner privacy, UBCs will equal registration. It is as predictable as the sun rising.

If you really feel that UBCs are some unconquerable hill and you want to compromise in that area, your first goal should be knocking down the recordkeeping of the 1968 system and envisioning a system that better protects gunowner privacy. Once you have that, UBCs are no threat to gun owners and a compromise there can make access to firearms easier either by removing a lot of the nonsensical bureaucratic barriers a la Coburn's 2013 bill. Because once registration is in, the bureaucratic requirements will become increasingly burdensome until the number of legal gun owners are no longer a politically significant force and the illegal gun owners hide out and stay quiet to avoid being spotted.

But compromising on UBCs first and then trying to fix recordkeeping is only going to go one way. It is the same old "Feed the alligator feet first and hope he gets full before he finishes so you can crawl away on your arms.". And it will end about as well as that situation too.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Some good points made there by Bartholomew Roberts to be used in manipulating the details of a national UBC. I don't propose we "feed the alligator" until we compromise on the menu. Never imagined I would have the opportunity to discuss this topic with an 18th Century pirate.

 

[danez71]

This is why destroying the recordkeeping outlined in the 1968 GCA must be the first step of any "compromise". Even fence sitters who are responsive to gun control arguments will be receptive to the idea of updating an entirely paper system designed almost half a century ago.


If you really feel that UBCs are some unconquerable hill and you want to compromise in that area, your first goal should be knocking down the recordkeeping of the 1968 system and envisioning a system that better protects gunowner privacy.

.

Let's be honest about a few things.. well... honest about 'everything' but that isn't a catch phrase


There isn't a chance in heck that the recordkeeping outlined 1969 GCA will be destroyed.

Is there any meaningful litigation or piece of proposed legislation even attempting that?

That's a red herring if there ever was one.


On the other hand, there's successful incremental movement forward in expanding UBC.


Fighting UBC's, as others have noted, doesn't portray the Pro side well. We look like we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers.


IMO, The fence sitters that would oppose UBC are truly more of the Libertarian mindset and therefore probably aren't fence sitters to begin with.


IMO, We don't gain any more Pro 2A supporters by fighting UBC's. If you think otherwise, please explain how... I'm open to hearing it and would like to believe it; but I don't see how we do.


And its big assumption on your part to say that fence sitters would be receptive to updating the paper system as evidenced here at THR every time someone writes "If it aint broke, don't fix it" and "A solution looking for a problem".


The anti's and fence sitters don't see the 1968 GCA and related recording keeping as being broken.

The anti's see it as something that needs to be EXPANDED.

And any true fence sitters don't have an opinion to it. They just see a bunch of people that want to secretly sell guns. That's not a good image to portray.

 

[natman]

What's fraudulent about this guy isn't that he has an FFL in his home. He's not a gun dealer who supports background checks. He's an anti-gunner who supports background checks masquerading as a gun dealer, and an FFL is just part of the costume.

Do you have a basis for saying that he is not a gun dealer?

I don't have any proof that he's not a legit dealer. Do you have any that he is?

So we're going to have to go with what we know so far:
He doesn't have a store.
He doesn't have a website.

Right there it's pretty clear that he's not a gun dealer, whether he has an FFL or not.

He works with / for one of the most rabidly anti-gun organization in the country.



http://www.trivalleycentral.com/cas...cle_f25f3934-3c4f-11e5-a22e-77c5df8edbc7.html

Well, if he walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with a bunch of flocking ducks, it's fair to assume he's a duck.

Let's be more specific about what he's touting. The issue here is not just background checks, but eliminating the 3 day maximum holding time of the gun. This may seem like a small point but it's not. If there's no maximum hold time, the government can take it's own sweet time processing the background check. It would remove any incentive for the background check to be processed in a timely manner or even be held up forever if funding for performing background checks dried up.

It could become like the program to restore gun rights to non-violent felons. The program to do it exists, at least in theory, but there is specifically no funding to do it, therefore none are done.

If he were really concerned with having a background check done before the gun were released, he and the Bradys would be pushing the government to get it's act together and process the BG checks in three days. But they're not.

Several decades ago, just about every gun dealer I knew favored the passage of the "Dodd Bill", which became known as GCA '68 when enacted. Do you think they were "anti-gunners"?

This is overly simplistic. I think Chris Kitaeff is an anti-gunner because of the positions he espouses and because he works with the Brady Bunch. That doesn't mean that everything that ever happened in the history of guns has the same cause.

In the case of the gun dealers in 1968 their motives were economic, not legal or political. The government offered the dealers a chance to eliminate all mail order competition. Most retailers in any product today would happily accept a chance to eliminate all competition from any mail order source.