Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Michael Bloomberg-backed Gun Group Forced to Retract Claims about Dealers


In this Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014, file photo, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg smiles prior to be conferred with the Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur by France's Foreign minister Laurent Fabius, at the Quai d'Orsay, in Paris. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus, File)

The Washington Times suggested by commenter George Jefferson

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group financed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has gone into mea culpa mode for claims it made about firearms dealers that turned out to be wrong — and that may lead at least one to file a lawsuit.

The group issued a report a few days ago that said more than 1,000 online gun ads in Vermont were posted by unlicensed dealers and therefore, leading potential buyers to bypass background checks. But Everytown for Gun Safety wrongly identified 48 ads by dealers.

At least one misidentified Vermont dealer — Bobby Richards, owner and operator of CrossFire Arms in Mount Holly — is threatening a lawsuit, The Blaze reported.

Mr. Richards, who advertises firearms sales at the online venue Armslist, said he requires every potential buyer to fill out a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 and undergo a screening by the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System, The Blaze reported.

Everytown for Gun Safety, meanwhile, has issued an apology for the error.

Hahahahahahaha.  Bloomberg is laughing as hard as I am. Of course this nonsense comes from the conservative rag The Washington Times and the conservative web site, The Blaze (Glenn Beck is well known for his honest portrayals).

What it boils down to is that Everytown said 1,000 and it's really 952.

Hahahahahaha

22 comments:

  1. "What it boils down to is that Everytown said 1,000 and it's really 952."

    Actually no Mike, it doesn't boil down to that. Everytown and their minions at MDA and such have gotten used to spouting stuff to the press and social media without caring whether its true or not. Normally this just results in a self inflicted injury in that all that suffers is their credibility, such as when Politifact called them on their school shootings "study".
    For some reason, not being satisfied with their current accomplishments, they decided to take it up a notch. In the current "study" they used photos of firearms from a company to illustrate said "study" regarding online sales to prohibited persons. They didn't even attempt to edit out the company's name which was on every photo.
    Looking stupid when they cook the numbers doesn't seem to faze them, so it looks like perhaps a little monetary pain is called for. JUst because they have some ingrained belief that their cause is just doesn't excuse them from having to obey the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad the real number wasn't 1,001. They could have rightly called "thousands," just ask Kurt.

      Delete
    2. Too bad the real number wasn't 1,001.

      Yeah--"[t]oo bad" (for you) that 1,001 is pure fantasy. You can call it "hundreds," though.

      Delete
  2. Hahahaha, wait till the the lawyers get ahold of Bloombergs gun control group and punishes them for the libelous article, eight plaintiffs I wonder how deeply they can dig, one million maybe two million a piece. I bet that would cramp their style. And since it is not against the law to privately sell firearms I wonder how many of those 992 other "unlicenced" dealers might want to jump on the gravy train.... Class action would be hilliarious, though I hope the go separately more money In it for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yeah, what tremendous libel! Oh, the damages!

      Delete
    2. You gotta love this defense. "So, what? Yeah, we libeled you, but the damage was so small that it doesn't matter!" Which translate's to: "Our strategy to win this fight by shaming gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers is so impotent that it couldn't possibly affect them negatively, so they shouldn't care about the lies we're telling."

      Of course, if the donors to the gun control movement ever rub enough brain cells together to realize that is the proffered defense, they may decide that their donations can be better spent on some other project whose proponents actually have confidence that they can get results.

      Delete
    3. Well the can sue for whatever damages they think approatiate and let a judge/jury figure it out, but I certainly think that the discovery in regards to their donor list will be hilliarious, that and all data regarding their study will be a regular laugh riot.

      Delete
    4. Why don't you hold your breath until Bloomberg has to shell out millions.

      Delete
  3. Are you sure that the other 952 were verified to be correct? The ones he got busted on were obvious FFL sales with pictures that even have a company watermark on them, and the same location and contact info. Why couldn’t his crack team of researchers screen such obvious ones out? But I want to be clear that even if those 952 are actually private, then good. I hope there are a thousand more he didn’t find. Private sales are legal in Vermont- as they should be. The key takeaway here is that Bloomberg’s “research” has been shown on multiple occasions to be false, so anything he presents should be taken with a heaping of rock salt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, calling 952 a thousand is a major falsehood. Trump it up.

      Delete
    2. You're not even understanding the criticism. This has nothing to do with rounding. Who cares about rounding? The criticism is that the included FFL offers for sale (obvious ones at that) in their list of private sales. So what did they actually "study"?

      Delete
    3. I'm not saying it was a rounding up. I understand there were a handful of gun dealers wrongly classified. BIG DEAL.

      Delete
    4. I understand there were a handful of gun dealers wrongly classified. BIG DEAL.

      They were "wrongly classified" as federal criminals. I realize you approve of just making shit up to discredit anyone involved with private gun ownership, but that doesn't stop it from being a "BIG DEAL."

      Delete
    5. I find this whole “sting” to be no big deal: “OMG, citizens in one of the safest states in the country are legally exchanging constitutionally protected items!”

      BIG DEAL

      Delete
    6. I don't think it's a settled fact that high cap mags are "constitutionally protected."

      Delete
    7. I don't think it's a settled fact that high cap mags are "[C]onstitutionally protected."

      What the hell do magazines (of any capacity) have to do with it? Those don't require a background check, regardless of who is selling them.

      Nope, this is about gun sales, many, if not most, probably handguns, which the Supreme Court has twice ruled are Constitutionally protected.

      Delete
    8. Right. I don't know where I got the high-cap magazines idea from. Sorry for the confusion.

      Delete
  4. This immediately spoke to me as something that you would find laughable Mike given your propensity to laugh off the willingness of the Antis to fudge facts and attempt to embarrass and chide people who are acting within law and not even apologize to those they may have harmed when they get caught

    Good luck to Mr Richards with his lawsuit..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "apologize to those they may have harmed"

      What was that harm, by the way? All this talk of lawsuits and damages, tell us, what was that harm anyway?

      Delete
    2. What was that harm, by the way? All this talk of lawsuits and damages, tell us, what was that harm anyway?

      Falsely accusing a gun dealer of violating federal gun laws is indeed libelous, and damaging to the dealer's reputation. No wonder you're so pleased about it.

      Delete
  5. Get a pitbull lawyer, and go for the throat, Mr. Richards. Tear these lying vermin a new one.

    ReplyDelete