Weapons Blueprints Banned in the Fine Print of "Sentencing Reform" :: 01/21/2016

One of the presidents signature issues is “sentencing reform.” By this is meant a comprehensive bill altering Federal prison sentences, mostly, reducing them, Particularly for drug dealers, even drug dealers who used firearms and committed violent crimes as part of their “business.”

This 19th Century Torpedo sectional view? Banned!

While we have strong opinions on the probable results of releasing tens of thousands of proven criminals, the Senate bill has a paragraph banning statutorily the dissemination of information about firearms that the Administration has tried to ban by executive action, through the State Department’s. Apparently, Gun Owners of America caught this detail ‘way back in October:

Remember the Obama administration’s efforts to criminalize posting “how-to” gun information on the Internet? That’s in the bill, too.

MP40 drawings? Banned!

Thus, under section 108, anyone putting “technical data” with respect to guns on the Munitions List on the Internet is liable for a five year mandatory minimum prison sentence — even if it is only in a private e-mail.

And this is because the Obama administration has indicated that it will regard a transmission on the Internet to be a communication with any person or country with access to the Internet.

(hat tip, Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine, yesterday). This provision would do several things. First, it would probably moot Defense Distributed’s 1st Amendment (among other things) challenge to this national socialist speech code. Second, it would not just ban, but criminalize a great deal of the information posted here, and at other websites and forums. Gunsmithing how-tos on You Tube? Stroke of the pen, illegal; they’d have to go. Even the AGI DVD gunsmithing courses would be subject to onerous ITAR and other State Department regulations.

How the High-Low works. Banned, banned, banned!

It actually redefines the public service this blog provides as, literally, “providing goods and services to terrorists.” (Congressional Research Service Summary of S.2123).

“There will be massive civil disobedience,” you may counter. “People will overwhelm the authorities with noncompliance.”

They do not want a bill they can enforce evenly. The beauty of a bill that criminalizes tens of thousands is that it can be enforced selectively, politically.

The State Department, in Washington, is thought to need something to do. They have done such a fine job advancing American interests around the world that they’re done with that and ready to move on to higher priorities.

And there actually are Feds who have nothing to do: for example, the Special Agents and Removal Officers of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency, who have been enjoined from arresting criminal aliens and deporting them for political reasons, would easily be redirected against gun owners, builders, hobbyists, and technologists, especially once their leaders are done demonizing us.

3D printed 1911A1 (Job 2) on the printer platen. The data necessary to do this will be banned.

It’s not surprising to see proven national socialists like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) supporting this language. It’s not surprising to see phony Vietnam veteran, Dick Blumenthal (D-CT), whose loathing for real veterans is ever manifest, supporting several provisions that label veterans as second-class citizens, and allow them to be stripped of their firearms rights with a stroke of a political appointee’s pen.

But it might surprise you that your senator might support these things, also. For example, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, sells himself to Iowa voters as a pro-gun conservative every six years, but in his real home, Washington DC, he’s ingratiated himself with the Administration by being the lead sponsor of this pro-criminal, anti-gun bill. Here is a list of 28 co-sponsors, at this time guaranteed votes for this anti-gun bill. Some half of those anti-gun extremists sell themselves as pro-gun at election time. (Hey, they’re politicians; lying is what they do).  You expect to see Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Al Franken (D-MN) on an anti-gun bill; you don’t expect to see Pat Roberts (R-KS) or Joni Ernst (R-IA) on there. (Remember her ads with her gun from the election? Didn’t take her long to get co-opted into the One Party of Washington and sell out her voters. -Ed).

This pro-criminal, anti-gun bill is at serious risk of becoming law. And it may not be with these exact provisions; if we read the Congress.gov website right, the version of the bill reported to the Senate floor is essentially an empty wrapper into which any kind of mischief may be inserted — so long as it lets career criminals go and defines gun researchers as supporters of terrorism. (Never mind that the ATF has provided criminals and terrorists with more small arms than they ever built on their own).

We’re lucky — living in two states (relax, we only vote in one) we have four Senators, and none have signed yet as cosponsors. But we’re going to do the same thing as a pre-emptive strike, to let them know voters are watching. We’ve got four Senators to call, most of you will have two. After the jump, we have a primer on what to do.

Activism 101

Call your senators. Not email. Emails go to File 13. Calls get mostly ignored, too, but the pro/con numbers of them get tallied, usually. Calls, however, are taken seriously. They know it’s a pain in the neck to call, so it’s a crude measure of voter intensity.

Here’s how to do it effectively, by the numbers. We’ll call your target Senator Blowfish.

1. Don’t email. Some staffer will delete it, maybe after an intern reads it, maybe not.
2. Don’t use some activist group’s interface or pre-written letter. Those go to File 13. Senator Blowfish already knows what he thinks about The National Rifle Association or Illegal Mayors Against Moms, and if he wants your opinion, peasant, he’ll give it to you.
3. Plan the call first. Start with the one you think is less persuadable. (Because your points will be more polished on the second call, use the first as a practice opportunity). Work out your key talking points:
1. You voted for Senator Blowfish last time (regardless of whether you did. Senators are famously vain and take supporters more seriously than opponents).
2. The Second Amendment is one of your issues, and you noted that Senator B said he supported the Second Amendment, which helped you support him/her last time.  (Safe bet. Anti-gun Senators say, “I support the Second Amendment, but,” the good ol’ abnegatory but, hoping you only hear the pablum before the comma).
3. You oppose the Sentencing Reform Bill and particularly the anti-gun language from the original Section 108. It is a violation of the spirit of the 1st and 2nd amendments alike.
4. You were disappointed that Senator Blowfish co-sponsored the bill // relieved that your Senator’s name was not among the cosponsors.
5. You oppose S.2123 because of the language that criminalizes sharing information about common sporting and collector firearms.
6. You urge him to oppose the bill and especially the anti-gun language.
7. You are watching the vote closely, and the Senator’s decision will influence future votes. (Some detail here if the Senator is up for re-election this year: “If your vote is no better than I could expect from Candidate Mudfish…”)
8. You can say then what you like or don’t about S. 2123 apart from the gun provisions, if you like, but keep it brief. (One sentence or less). Example: “A bill restricted to first-time offenders would be less risky, but the draft language dumps violent career criminals to the streets.”)
9. For extra points, draft a letter. Revise it after the call: “I spoke with Dylan at your office, and he indicated you had not made a decision on the bill..” and send the follow up. Your own words, your own address or letterhead. The call/letter double whammy has the most impact you can have.
4. While that’s a basic schema, do it in your own language and words. Put your own twist on it. Be yourself.
5. Be prepared to get a young junior staffer, an intern, or even voicemail. Senators themselves don’t take calls from mere constituents, and most of them are dyed-in-the-wool Washingtonians who have a love/hate relationship with their home states to begin with. (In the large states, they don’t the calls from mere millionaires, either).
6. You can look up your Senator at this link. If you don’t know who your Senators are you can call this number twice: (202) 224-3121.
1. The first time, ask for “the Senior Senator from the great State of [your state].” They will tell you who it is, and transfer you to his or her office.
2. Then repeat for “the junior Senator…” yadda, yadda.

It should go without saying that you need to employ your best Dact™ and Tiplomacy® here. Even if your Senator is a conservative, his or her staffers and interns are almost certainly DC professional liberals, who firmly believe that Indian Territory begins about three counties out in Northern Virginia and extends to the fringes of the Bay Area. That makes you an Indian, Tonto, and no Indians are allowed, unless they come with heap big pile of casino wampum.

Those of us who are NRA members ought to try to persuade NRA to oppose this bill as well, or at least the anti-gun language in it, but the NRA’s only decision makers are part of the One Party of Washington, too, and the fix may be in at their address, as they haven’t said boo about this.

(We ought to mention this somewhere: autocorrect on the temporary WeaponsMan.com writing box changed the New York pol’s name to Chuck Schemer. Works for us. -Ed).

http://weaponsman.com/?p=28687