The Pronk Pops Show 1304, August 8-9, 2019, Story 1: Senator Mitch McConnell Now Says Background Checks and Other Bills Infringing Your Second Amendment Rights Will Be Discussed in September — Vote Out Of Office Any Democrat or Republican The Votes For Limiting Your Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights — Videos — Story 2: Creepy Sleepy Dopey Joey Biden Attacks Trump By Lying — Joins Radical Extremist Democrat Socialists in Desperate Attempt To Save His Candidacy — Videos — Story 3: Survival of The Anti-American  Presidential Candidates of The Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) — How Not To Win Friends and Influence People — Failing Final Four: Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris — Trump Should Beat Them All — Videos — Story 4: Nearly 700 Illegal Aliens Detained In Massive Raids In Mississippi Food Processing Plants — End Catch and Release — Videos — Story 5: A Confident President Trump Comments To The Big Lie Media Before Taking 10 Day Vacation — Winning The Hearts and Minds of American People With A Resonating Message — Videos — Story 6: Recently Numerous Two Seconds or A Few Seconds Videos on Youtube For Fox Commentators Including Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, The Five, and Many More — Either YouTube is Doing This or YouTube Is Failing To Stop Whoever  Is Doing This! — Videos

Posted on August 13, 2019. Filed under: 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Anthropology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Business, Cartoons, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Spending, Hate Speech, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Independence, Investments, Killing, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Lying, Mass Shooting Homicides, Media, Mental Illness, National Interest, News, People, Progressives, Psychology, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Sciences, Sociology, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Trump Surveillance/Spying, United States Constitution, United States of America, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1304 August 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1303 August 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1302 August 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1282 June 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1281 June 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1280 June 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1279 June 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1278 June 20, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1277 June 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1276 June 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1275 June 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1274 June 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1273 June 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1272 June 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1271 June 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1270 June 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1269 June 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1268 June 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1267 May 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1266 May 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1265 May 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1264 May 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1263 May 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1262 May 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1261 May 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1260 May 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1259 May 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019

See the source image

See the source imageImage result for branco cartoons trump meaningful background checksSee the source image

See the source image

 

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

 

Story 1: Senator Mitch McConnell Now Says Background Checks and Other Bills Infringing Your Second Amendment Rights Will Be Discussed in September — Vote Out Of Office Any Democrat or Republican The Votes For Limiting Your Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights — Videos

Is Senator Mitch McConnell Stalling For Time On Gun Reform? | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Mitch McConnell says senate will consider gun control legislation next month

Trump open to ‘meaningful’ background checks after shootings

“All the gun laws they’re proposing hurt the most vulnerable and minorities most.” – John Lott

John Lott on gun control: “The background check system itself is basically racist”

Part of John Lott’s Lecture of the Problems with Expanded Background Checks May 22, 2016

The NRA on universal background checks

What Do Gun Background Checks Actually Check?

 

McConnell wants to consider gun background checks in fall

 

Shifting the gun violence debate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he now wants to consider background checks and other bills, setting up a potentially pivotal moment when lawmakers return in the fall.

The Republican leader won’t be calling senators back to work early, as some are demanding. But he told a Kentucky radio station that President Donald Trump called him Thursday morning and they talked about several ideas. The president, he said, is “anxious to get an outcome, and so am I.”

Stakes are high for all sides, but particularly for Trump and his party. Republicans have long opposed expanding background checks – a bill passed by the Democratic-led House is stalled in the Senate – but they face enormous pressure to do something after mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead. McConnell, who is facing protests outside his Louisville home, can shift attention back to Democrats by showing a willingness to engage ahead of the 2020 election.

“What we can’t do is fail to pass something,” McConnell said. “What I want to see here is an outcome.”

McConnell said he and Trump discussed various ideas on the call, including background checks and the so-called “red flag” laws that allow authorities to seize firearms from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

“Background checks and red flags will probably lead the discussion,” McConnell told Louisville’s WHAS-AM. He noted “there’s a lot of support” publicly for background checks. “Those are two items that for sure will be front and center as we see what we can come together on and pass.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Trump has been interested in federal background checks before – and tweeted Monday about them – only to drop the issue later, a turnaround similar to his reversal on gun proposals after the 2018 high school shooting at Parkland, Florida.

The powerful National Rifle Association and its allies on Capitol Hill have long wielded influence, but the gun lobby’s grip on Democrats started slipping some time ago, and it’s unclear how much sway the NRA and other gun groups still hold over Republicans in the Trump era.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump assured them in phone calls Thursday he will review the House-passed bill that expands federal background checks for firearm sales.

In a joint statement, they said Trump called them individually after Pelosi sent a letter asking the president to order the Senate back to Washington immediately to consider gun violence measures.

Schumer and Pelosi said they told Trump the best way to address gun violence is for the Senate to take up and pass the House bill. Trump, they said, “understood our interest in moving as quickly as possible to help save lives.”

The politics of gun control are shifting amid the frequency and toll of mass shootings. Spending to support candidates backing tougher gun control measures – mostly Democrats – surged in the 2018 midterms, even as campaign spending by the NRA declined.

NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said in rare public statement Thursday that some federal gun control proposals “would make millions of law-abiding Americans less safe and less able to defend themselves and their loved ones.”

The organization said proposals being discussed in Congress would not have prevented the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that killed 31 people.

McConnell has been under pressure from Democrats, and others, to bring senators back to Washington after the back-to-back weekend shootings.

Earlier, more than 200 mayors, including those in Dayton and El Paso, urged the Senate to return to the Capitol. “Our nation can no longer wait,” they wrote.

McConnell on Thursday rejected the idea of reconvening the Senate, saying calling senators back now would just lead to people “scoring points and nothing would happen.”

Instead, the GOP leader wants to spend the August recess talking with Democratic and Republican senators to see what’s possible. Senators have been talking among themselves, and holding conference calls, to sort out strategy.

“If we do it prematurely it’ll just be another frustrating position for all of us and for the public,” he said.

The politics of gun violence are difficult for Republicans, including McConnell. He could risk losing support as he seeks reelection in Kentucky if he were to back restricting access to firearms and ammunition. Other Republicans, including those in Colorado, Maine and swing states, also would face difficult votes, despite the clamor for gun laws.

GOP senators are also considering changes to the existing federal background check system, modeled on a law signed last year that improved the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, as well as increased penalties for hate crimes.

While many of those proposals have bipartisan support, Democrats are unlikely to agree to them without consideration of the more substantive background checks bill.

“We Democrats are not going to settle for half-measures so Republicans can feel better and try to push the issue of gun violence off to the side,” Schumer said Wednesday.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who, along with Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., is pushing a bill to expand background checks, said Trump’s support will be the determining factor in whatever gets done.

“At this point in time leadership comes from President Trump,” Manchin said.

___

Associated Press writer Bruce Schreiner in Louisville, Kentucky, contributed to this report.

FILE - In this July 23, 2019, file photo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. More than 200 mayors, including the mayors of El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, are urging Senate leaders to call senators back to the Capitol to act on bipartisan gun safety legislation. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

FILE – In this July 23, 2019, file photo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. More than 200 mayors, including the mayors of El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, are urging Senate leaders to call senators back to the Capitol to act on bipartisan gun safety legislation. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Dayton, Ohio, Mayor Nan Whaley speaks to members of the media Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019, outside Ned Peppers bar in the Oregon District after a mass shooting that occurred early Sunday morning in Dayton. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

FILE – In this July 30, 2019, photo, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., takes questions from reporters at the Capitol in Washington. More than 200 mayors, including the mayors of El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, are urging Senate leaders to call senators back to the Capitol to act on bipartisan gun safety legislation. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

President Donald Trump is greeted by Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, after arriving at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to meet with people affected by the mass shooting in Dayton, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019, in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump is greeted by Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, after arriving at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to meet with people affected by the mass shooting in Dayton, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019, in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-7339487/McConnell-wants-consider-gun-background-checks-fall.html

John Cornyn

Sen.

John Cornyn

  • (TX)-R
  •   | In Office Since 2003

LIBERTY SCORE®

F

33%

Highcharts.com

Conservative:
33.0%
Liberal:
67.0%
Conservative Votes 16
Liberal Votes 32
Missed Votes 2
Liberty Score® 33%

Records as of: 08-10-2019

Liberty Score®

Conservative Review’s Liberty Score® grades members of Congress on the top 50 votes over a rolling six-year term. A letter grade is assigned to each member to help you quickly determine whether a lawmaker is supporting conservative principles. The Liberty Score® helps evaluate your representatives and senators, providing the tools necessary to separate rhetoric from reality. We don’t expect any elected officials to be perfect, but we do expect them to keep promises.

Liberty Score Votes

Date of Vote Vote CR Position Member Vote
05/23/2019 Pass a $19 billion spending bill without funding for the border crisis
02/25/2019 Protect Abortion Survivors by Banning Infanticide in America
02/14/2019 Surrender on the border wall; empower drug cartels and human traffickers
01/17/2019 End taxpayer funding for abortion
12/19/2018 Release dangerous criminals from federal prisons
12/11/2018 Pass a $900 billion farm bill with socialist policies
09/18/2018 Pass a promise-breaking cromnibus before the election
07/31/2018 Extend a broken and almost-insolvent flood insurance program
06/28/2018 Kill amendment to reform food stamps with stronger work requirements, upgraded job training
06/21/2018 Block final repeal of ‘waters of the US’ rule
05/17/2018 ‘Penny Plan’ to balance budget without tax increases
05/16/2018 Reinstate Obama’s net neutrality regulations
03/23/2018 Advance a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities
03/23/2018 Pass a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities
02/09/2018 Massive Spending, Debt Ceiling Raise, and Democrat Priorities Funded
01/29/2018 Vote Alert: Allow Vote to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks (Point of Pain)
01/16/2018 Support Unconstitutional Abuses of Americans’ Privacy
12/20/2017 Tax Cut For America
10/24/2017 Bailout Flood Insurance Program & Spend $36.5B
09/07/2017 The Pelosi-Schumer-Trump debt limit deal
05/04/2017 $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill for Democrat Priorties
04/07/2017 Confirm Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court
09/28/2016 Fund Obama Priorities and Give Planned Parenthood a Raise
06/29/2016 Support a Puerto Rico Bailout
05/19/2016 Support Obama’s War on Suburbs
04/19/2016 Increase Taxpayer Subsidies for “Green Energy” Home Loans
03/14/2016 Confirm Common-Core Supporting Education Secretary
01/19/2016 Lifetime Appointment of a Liberal Judge
12/18/2015 To Advance a $1.1 Trillion Budget Busting Spending Bill
12/09/2015 Expand Federal Control of Education
12/04/2015 1,300 Page $305 Billion Highway Bailout Bill
10/30/2015 Raise Debt Limit by $1.5 Trillion and Increase Spending
10/20/2015 Punish Sanctuary Cities That Violate Immigration Law
06/23/2015 Obamatrade — Fast Track Authority for TPP
04/23/2015 Support Loretta Lynch Nomination
04/14/2015 $500 Billion Healthcare Bill
02/27/2015 Fully Fund Obama’s Executive Amensty
01/29/2015 Approve Keystone XL Pipeline
12/13/2014 Advance $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill that Funds Executive Amnesty
12/13/2014 Declare Obama’s Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional
12/12/2014 Stop Government Land Grab
07/31/2014 Vote to waive budget discipline for Miller-Sanders Veterans deal
07/29/2014 Mike Lee Transportation Empowerment Act
02/12/2014 Advance debt limit increase without spending cuts
12/16/2013 To confirm Jeh Johnson as Secretary of Homeland Security
06/27/2013 Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill
05/06/2013 Internet Sales Tax
04/11/2013 Advance Gun Control Legislation Closer to Passage
03/20/2013 Fund the government and Obamacare
02/12/2013 “Violence Against Women Act”

 

Ted Cruz

Sen.

Ted Cruz

  • (TX)-R
  •   | In Office Since 2013

LIBERTY SCORE®

B

80%

Highcharts.com

Conservative:
80.0%
Liberal:
20.0%
Conservative Votes 36
Liberal Votes 9
Missed Votes 5
Liberty Score® 80%

Records as of: 08-10-2019

Liberty Score®

Conservative Review’s Liberty Score® grades members of Congress on the top 50 votes over a rolling six-year term. A letter grade is assigned to each member to help you quickly determine whether a lawmaker is supporting conservative principles. The Liberty Score® helps evaluate your representatives and senators, providing the tools necessary to separate rhetoric from reality. We don’t expect any elected officials to be perfect, but we do expect them to keep promises.

Liberty Score Votes

Date of Vote Vote CR Position Member Vote
05/23/2019 Pass a $19 billion spending bill without funding for the border crisis
02/25/2019 Protect Abortion Survivors by Banning Infanticide in America
02/14/2019 Surrender on the border wall; empower drug cartels and human traffickers
01/17/2019 End taxpayer funding for abortion
12/19/2018 Release dangerous criminals from federal prisons
12/11/2018 Pass a $900 billion farm bill with socialist policies
09/18/2018 Pass a promise-breaking cromnibus before the election
07/31/2018 Extend a broken and almost-insolvent flood insurance program
06/28/2018 Kill amendment to reform food stamps with stronger work requirements, upgraded job training
06/21/2018 Block final repeal of ‘waters of the US’ rule
05/17/2018 ‘Penny Plan’ to balance budget without tax increases
05/16/2018 Reinstate Obama’s net neutrality regulations
03/23/2018 Advance a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities
03/23/2018 Pass a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities
02/09/2018 Massive Spending, Debt Ceiling Raise, and Democrat Priorities Funded
01/29/2018 Vote Alert: Allow Vote to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks (Point of Pain)
01/16/2018 Support Unconstitutional Abuses of Americans’ Privacy
12/20/2017 Tax Cut For America
10/24/2017 Bailout Flood Insurance Program & Spend $36.5B
09/07/2017 The Pelosi-Schumer-Trump debt limit deal
05/04/2017 $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill for Democrat Priorties
04/07/2017 Confirm Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court
09/28/2016 Fund Obama Priorities and Give Planned Parenthood a Raise
06/29/2016 Support a Puerto Rico Bailout
05/19/2016 Support Obama’s War on Suburbs
04/19/2016 Increase Taxpayer Subsidies for “Green Energy” Home Loans
03/14/2016 Confirm Common-Core Supporting Education Secretary
01/19/2016 Lifetime Appointment of a Liberal Judge
12/18/2015 To Advance a $1.1 Trillion Budget Busting Spending Bill
12/09/2015 Expand Federal Control of Education
12/04/2015 1,300 Page $305 Billion Highway Bailout Bill
10/30/2015 Raise Debt Limit by $1.5 Trillion and Increase Spending
10/20/2015 Punish Sanctuary Cities That Violate Immigration Law
06/23/2015 Obamatrade — Fast Track Authority for TPP
04/23/2015 Support Loretta Lynch Nomination
04/14/2015 $500 Billion Healthcare Bill
02/27/2015 Fully Fund Obama’s Executive Amensty
01/29/2015 Approve Keystone XL Pipeline
12/13/2014 Advance $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill that Funds Executive Amnesty
12/13/2014 Declare Obama’s Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional
12/12/2014 Stop Government Land Grab
07/31/2014 Vote to waive budget discipline for Miller-Sanders Veterans deal
07/29/2014 Mike Lee Transportation Empowerment Act
02/12/2014 Advance debt limit increase without spending cuts
12/16/2013 To confirm Jeh Johnson as Secretary of Homeland Security
06/27/2013 Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill
05/06/2013 Internet Sales Tax
04/11/2013 Advance Gun Control Legislation Closer to Passage
03/20/2013 Fund the government and Obamacare
02/12/2013 “Violence Against Women Act”

John Lott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

John Lott
JohnLott.jpg

John Lott in 2009
Native name
John Richard Lott Jr.
Born May 8, 1958 (age 61)
Institutions University of ChicagoYale UniversityWharton School of the University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Maryland, College ParkAmerican Enterprise Institute
Field Economics
Alma mater UCLA
Website http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate. Lott was formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of ChicagoYale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. As of 2017, he is a contributor for FoxNews.comthe Hill, and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

He has written for both academic and popular publications. He has authored books such as More Guns, Less CrimeThe Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics. He is best known as an advocate[1][2][3] in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns. Newsweek referred to Lott as “The Gun Crowd’s Guru.”[4]

Contents

Academic career

John Lott studied economics at UCLA, receiving his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D. in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, the Hoover InstitutionUCLA, the Wharton Business SchoolTexas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission[5] (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (2001–2006). He left AEI for SUNY Binghamton.[6] From July 2007 to 2010, Lott was a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland, College Park and lectured on law and economics.[7][8]

Popular press and electronic media

Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as the The Wall Street JournalThe New York Times, the Los Angeles TimesUSA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.[9][5]

Concealed weapons and crime rate

In a 1997 article written with David B. Mustard[10] and Lott’s subsequent books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, Lott argued that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America.

The work was immediately controversial, drawing both support and opposition. Several academics praised Lott’s methodology, including Florida State University economist Bruce Benson,[11] Cardozo School of Law professor John O. McGinnis,[12] College of William and Mary professor Carlisle Moody,[13] University of Mississippi professor William F. Shughart,[14] and SUNY economist Florenz Plassmann and University of Adelaide economist John Whitley.[15]

Other reviews said that there were problems with Lott’s model. In the New England Journal of MedicineDavid Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed.[16] Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, said that the model used by Lott contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[17] In the American Journal of Public HealthDaniel Webster et al. also raised concerns about other flaws in the study, such as misclassification of laws and endogeneity of predictor variables, which they said rendered the study’s conclusions “insupportable”.[18] Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[19] and others said that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida’s counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[20] A 1998 study by Jens Ludwig that said it “more effectively control[ed] for unobserved variables that may vary over time” than the Lott and Mustard study concluded that “shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates.”[21] A 2001 study in the Journal of Political Economy by University of Chicago economist Mark Duggan did robustness checks of Lott and Mustard’s study and found that the findings of the Lott and Mustard study were inaccurate.[22]

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott’s work, and concluded “that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.”[23] The NRC report studied over 100 different types of gun control proposal and it reached this same non-conclusion for all these regulations. For all these regulations, the NRC panel only called for more research.

Only right-to-carry laws had a dissent from this non-conclusion. The pre-eminent criminologist James Q. Wilson dissented from this non-conclusion.[24] Wilson pointed out that committee’s own findings showed “that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate”.[25]

Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that “Mr. Lott’s research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.”[26] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.”[17]

A 2008 article in Econ Journal Watch surveyed peer-reviewed empirical academic studies, and found that 10 supported the proposition that right-to-carry reduces crime, 8 supported no significant effect and none supported an increase.[27] The article was rebutted by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue in the same journal in 2009.[28] By 2012, there were 18 peer-reviewed studies that supported right-to-carry reduces crime, 10 supported no significant effect and one supported an increase.[29] Other studies on the subject have been published in student-edited academic reviews or the commercial press.

In 2013, Lott founded the nonprofit organization Crime Prevention Research Center to study the relationship between gun laws and crime. As of July 2015, he was also the organization’s president.[30]

Women’s suffrage and government growth

Using data from 1870 to 1940, Lott and Larry Kenny studied how state government expenditures and revenue changed in 48 state governments after women obtained the right to vote. Women were able to vote in 29 states before women’s suffrage and the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Lott stated that “women’s suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise.”[31]

Defensive gun use

Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that defensive gun use (DGU) is underreported, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.”

Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that “national surveys” suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” In that same paragraph he also wrote that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.” The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure in op-eds in the Wall Street Journal[32] and the Los Angeles Times.[33]

In 2002, he said that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology. A study in Public Opinion Quarterly said that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent.[34] According to Lott, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz’s 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[35]:8 Lott said that the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[36] The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during just the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it accounted for his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves.

Safe storage gun laws

In a 2001 study, Lott and John E. Whitley reported that safe-storage gun laws not only did not reduce juvenile suicides or accidental gun deaths, but that they also increased rates of violent and property crime.[37] The study was criticized by Webster et al. in the Journal of the American Medical Association for using Tobit regression despite the fact that the data used in the study on youth suicides was “highly skewed and heteroskedastic“, and because the vast majority of crimes that Lott and Whitley claimed increased due to safe-storage laws occurred outside the home.[38] Webster and Carroll also wrote in Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law that the Lott and Whitley study’s findings with respect to crime were inconsistent with prior research.[39]

Environmental regulations

Together with John Karpoff and Eric Wehrly at the University of Washington, Lott has worked to show the importance of government regulations through both legal and regulatory penalties and the weaknesses of reputational penalties in reducing pollution.[40] Firms violating environmental laws suffer statistically significant losses in the market value of firm equity. The losses are of similar magnitudes to the legal penalties imposed; and in the cross section, the market value loss is related to the size of the legal penalty.

Affirmative action in police departments

Lott finds that when hiring standards are lowered in the process of recruiting more minority officers, the overall quality of all officers is reduced and crime rates are increased. The most adverse effects of these hiring policies have occurred in the most heavily black populated cities. There is no consistent evidence that crime rates rise when standards for hiring women are changed, and this raises questions about whether norming tests or altering their content to create equal pass rates is preferable. The paper examines how the changing composition of police departments affects such measures as the murder of and assaults against police officers.[41]

Abortion and crime

With John Whitley at the University of Adelaide, Lott has considered crime rates and the possible influence of laws which place abortion decisions with the pregnant person other than boards of physicians. They acknowledge the old 1960s argument that abortion may prevent the birth of “unwanted” children, who would have relatively small investments in human capital and a higher probability of crime. On the other hand, their research suggests that liberalizing abortion rules correlates with an increase in out-of-wedlock births and single parent families. In turn, they argue that this increase in single parent births implies the opposite effect on investments in human capital (i.e., average investment per child decreases under their argument). Using the correlation between children in poverty and in single parent homes with crime they build an argument that liberalization of abortion laws increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent.[42] In a review of the literature on the relationship between abortion and crime, Theodore Joyce, an economist at Baruch College and the National Bureau of Economic Research, praised Lott and Whitley for gathering additional data on abortion but criticized the methodology that they used.[43]

Lost Bush votes in the 2000 presidential election

In 2000, Lott argued, using a regression analysis, that George W. Bush lost at least 10,000 votes in Florida after the media incorrectly called the state for Al Gore while voting was still on-going in the more conservative parts of the state.[44] Lott’s argument is used in the influential social science methodology textbook Rethinking Social Inquiry (edited by Henry Brady and David Collier) as an example of poor methodology, and showed how the number of lost Bush votes ranged from 28 to 56.[44]

Other areas

Lott claims that most of the large recent increases in campaign spending for state and federal offices can be explained by higher government spending.[45] Lott also supports the conclusion that higher quality judges, measured by their output once they are on the court (e.g., number of citations to their opinions or number of published opinions), take longer to get confirmed.[46]

Lott has advocated government deregulation of various areas, and has also been published in the popular press taking positions in support of the U.S. Republican Party and President George W. Bush on topics such as the validity of the 2000 Presidential Election results in Florida.[47]

Controversy

Defamation suit

On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott’s research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott’s work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott’s had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt’s replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott’s complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that “scholars with varying opinions” (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt’s letter as offering “a doozy of a concession.”[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott’s suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott’s research

In 1996 when Lott’s research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott’s fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is ‘associated with the Olin Corporation,’ one of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that’s a coincidence, too. But it’s also a fact.”[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer’s claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: “This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association.” Lott countered: “The NRA hasn’t paid for my research.” Dershowitz continued: “Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions.”[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott’s research.[60]

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey’s existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation

In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott’s critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott’s thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians’ conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel’s estimates on murder rates supported Lott’s conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that “[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant.”[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model “could not be replicated on its data set”.[71] Lott replicated the NRC’s results using the NRC’s copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona

In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used “Mary Rosh” as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself “the best professor I ever had”.

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students[73][74] and that “Rosh” was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the “Rosh” review was written by his son and wife.[74]

“I probably shouldn’t have done it—I know I shouldn’t have done it—but it’s hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously,” Lott told The Washington Post in 2003.[74]

Bibliography

See also

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Form 4473

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

ATF Form 4473, October 2016 revision

Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a form promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the United States Department of Justice that is filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder (such as a gun shop).[1]

The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, and a short affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. It contains make, model, or serial number on page three of the six page form. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison[2] in addition to fines, even if the transaction is denied by the NICS. Prosecutions are rare in the absence of another felony committed with the gun purchased.[citation needed] Of 556,496 denied transactions between FY 2008 and FY 2015, federal prosecutors prosecuted an average of under 32 cases per year, including 24 in FY 2013, 15 in FY 2014 and 20 in FY 2015.[3][4]

The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into a required “bound-book” called an “Acquisition and Disposition Log.[5] A dealer must keep this on file at least 20 years, and is required to surrender the log to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of, the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five-day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473. Some states (such as California and Colorado) require individual sellers to sell through dealers.

These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act’s restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales, and for 5 years where the sale was disapproved as a result of the NICS check.

Contents

eForm 4473

In response to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA),[6] and based upon requests from the firearms industry, the ATF has developed the e-Form 4473 to assist in the proper completion of the Federal Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473). The ATF eForm 4473 is designed to help eliminate errors in completing Form 4473 for both the firearm purchaser and the licensed seller. The eForm 4473 is provided to the public, including major retailers, free of charge via the ATF eForm web site. ATF eForm 4473 is a downloadable application that runs locally on the seller’s computer and supports both Windows and Mac OS X operating systems. (See “External links” section below.)

2016 revision

In 2016, ATF made several changes to the form, including adding a warning statement that the use of marijuana is illegal under federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where the transferee/buyer resides.[7][8]

In Popular Culture

Form 4473 was referenced in the 1984 film Red Dawn.[9]

References

  1. ^ See generally subsection (g)(1)(A) of 18 U.S.C. § 923 and subsection (a) of 27 C.F.R. sec. 478.124.
  2. ^ See subsection (a) of 18 U.S.C. § 922 and subsection (a)(1)(A) of 18 U.S.C. § 924.
  3. ^ https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf
  4. ^ “As gun ownership increases, prosecutions for lying to get a gun fall”.
  5. ^ See generally subsection (g)(2) of 18 U.S.C. section 923.
  6. ^ Title XVII (sections 1701 through 1710) of Division C of Public Law No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, at 2681-749 (Oct 21, 1998), amending subsection (a)(1)(B)(vi) of 44 U.S.C. § 3504.
  7. ^ “ATF Form 4473 – Firearms Transaction Record Revisions – Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives”http://www.atf.gov.
  8. ^ “Feds spell it out: No gun for you if you fire up in a pot-legal state”. 23 November 2016.
  9. ^ “Order from COL. Ernesto Bella to KGB Major to find firearms owners during invasion of Colorado”.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

ATF Form 4473 – Firearms Transaction Record Revisions

Image of a man filling out a form

Important Notice to All Federal Firearms Licensees

ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) has been revised. This page highlights the significant changes to the form. It is highly suggested that you review the entire revised form including all of the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions.

This form is effective January 16, 2017, you may no longer use the previous edition (April 2012) of the Form 4473 as it will be obsolete. The revised form is available to either download or order online.

The significant changes to Form 4473 include:Image of revised ATF Form 4473

General

Section A

Section B

Section D

Notice, Instructions, and Definitions

Related Resources

Related Research and Background Information

Ordering Forms

Contact Information

 

General

  • Form Title: Removed “Part I-Over-the-Counter”
  • Warning Statement: Clarifies that the form is to be completed at the licensed premises unless the transaction qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 922(c).

Section A

  • Question 1: Clarifies that transferee’s/buyer’s with a legal name that contains an initial only should record “IO” (including the quotation marks, i.e. John W. “IO” Smith). Also clarifies that transferee’s/buyer’s with a legal name that contains a suffix (e.g., Jr, Sr, II, III) should record the information with their last name.
  • Question 2:  Incorporated State of Residence information from former Question 13.
  • Question 6: Changed “Gender” to “Sex”.
  • Questions 10.a. and 10.b: Clarifies that both questions must be answered.
  • Question 11.e: Added a warning statement regarding marijuana that has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where the transferee/buyer resides.
  • Questions 12.a – 12.d and 13: (Formerly Questions 11.k – 12 and 14 – 15): Regrouped and revised the citizenship and immigration status questions to make them easier to follow.
  • Transferee/Buyer Certification: Clarifies that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is violation of Federal law.

Section B

  • Question 18.b (Formerly Question 20.b): Changed to “Supplemental Government Issued Documentation (if identification document does not show current residence address)
  • Question 18.c (Formerly Question 20.c): Changed to “Exception to the Nonimmigrant Alien Prohibition: If the transferee/buyer answered “YES” to 12.d.2. the transferor/seller must record the type of documentation showing the exception to the prohibition and attach a copy to this ATF Form 4473.”
  • Question 19.d (Formerly Question 21.d): Added a check box for “Overturned” transactions.
  • Question 19.g (Added to Form): “Name of FFL Employee Completing NICS check. (Optional)”.
  • Question 20 (Formerly Question 22): Clarifies that a NICS check is not required if the individual receiving the firearm was subject to a background check as part of the NFA approval process.

Section D

  • Header: Added instruction that the firearm information must be recorded even if the firearm(s) is/are not transferred.
  • Question 24 (Formerly Question 26): Changed to “Manufacturer and Importer (If any)” to reflect the language in 27 CFR 478.125(e).
  • Question 24 – 28 (Formerly Question 26 – 30): Removed line 5 and added line numbers.
  • Multiple Sale: Added “REMINDER – By the Close of Business” to the beginning of the sentence for clarification.
  • Question 29 (Formerly Question 30.a): Clarifies that “zero” should be recorded if no firearm(s) is/are transferred.
  • Question 30 (Formerly Question 30.b): Changed to a check box and added an instruction to record the line number(s) involved in the pawn redemption.
  • Question 32 (Added to Form): A check box to indicate that the transaction is to facilitate a private party transfer.
  • Question 33 (Formerly Questions 31 – 32): Combined the two questions.
  • Transferor Certification: Revised language to certify that the form was completed at the licensed business premises unless the transaction meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(c) and the transaction complies with State or local laws that are applicable to the firearms business. Clarifies that unless the transaction has been denied or cancelled the transferor/seller certifies that it is his/her belief that it is not unlawful for him/her to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.

Notices, Instructions, and Definitions

  • Purpose of the Form – Paragraph 2 (Added to Form): “Generally, ATF Form 4473 must be completed at the licensed business premises when a firearm is transferred over-the-counter. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(c), allows a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who does not appear in person at the licensee’s business premises only if the transferee/buyer meets certain requirements. These requirements are set forth in section 922(c), 27 CFR 478.96(b), and ATF Procedure 2013-2.”
  • Purpose of the Form – Over-the-Counter Transaction (Formerly Paragraph 4): Removed from form.
  • Purpose of the Form – State Laws and Published Ordinances (Formerly Paragraph 5): Removed from form. Information incorporated into Paragraph 1.
  • Purpose of the Form – Exportation of Firearms: Added “Warning: Any person who exports a firearm without proper authorization may be fined not more than $1,000,000 and/or imprisoned for not more than 20 years See 22 U.S.C. 2778(c).”
  • Instruction for Section A: Formerly instructions for Question 1.
  • Instruction for Question 2: Clarifies that a rural route (RR) may be accepted provided the transferee/buyer lives in a State or locality where it is considered a legal residence address. Also clarifies that the State of residence for members of the Armed Forces on active duty is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located.
  • Instruction for Question 9: Clarifies that the licensee should provide the UPIN when conducting background checks through the NICS or the State POC.
  • Instruction for Questions 10.a. and 10.b: Added to form.
  • Instruction for Question 11.a: Clarifies when a gift is considered “bona fide” and provides examples.
  • Instruction for Questions 11.b – 12 (Formerly Questions 11.b – 11.l): Added a new paragraph between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. “A member of the Armed Forces must answer “yes” to 11.b. or 11.c. if charged with an offense that was either referred to a General Court Martial, or at which the member was convicted. Discharged “under dishonorable conditions” means separation from the Armed Forces resulting from a dishonorable discharge or dismissal adjudged by a General Court-Martial. The term does not include any other discharge or separation from the Armed Forces.”
  • Instruction for Question 11.b: Removed from form. Information incorporated into Questions 11.b – 12.
  • EXCEPTION (Formerly EXCPTION to 11.c. and 11.i.): Clarifies that persons subject to this exception, or who receive relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), should answer “no” to the applicable question.
  • Instruction for Question 11.d: Added to form. Provides the definition of “Fugitive from Justice”.
  • EXCEPTION (Formerly EXCEPTION to 11.f): Clarifies when a person is not prohibited under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Language revised and additional information added.
  • Instruction for Question 12.d (Formerly Question 11.l.): Clarifies which aliens must answer “yes” to this question and provide the additional documentation required under Question 18.c.
  • Former Instruction for Question 11.l: Paragraph 2 removed from form. Information incorporated into Question 12.a.-12.d.
  • Former Instruction for Question 12: Removed from form. Information from Paragraph 1 incorporated into Question 18.c. Information from paragraph 2 incorporated into Questions 12.a.-12.d.
  • Former Instruction for Question 13: Removed from form. Information incorporated into Question 2.
  • New Instruction for Question 13: Added to form. Clarifies where U.S.-issued alien and admission numbers may be found. Also clarifies that U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals should leave the question left blank.
  • Instruction for Question 16 (Formerly Question 18): Clarifies that frames and receivers cannot be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place.
  • Instruction for Question 17. (Formerly Question 19.): Added the definition of “Qualifying Gun Show or Event”.
  • Instruction for Question 18a (Formerly Question 20.a): Clarifies that licensees may accept electronic PCS orders to establish residency.
  • Instruction for Question 18.b. (Formerly Question 20.b.): Clarifies that a valid electronic document from a government website may be used as supplemental documentation provided it contains the transferee’s/buyer’s name and current residence address.
  • Instruction for Question 18c. (Formerly Question 20.c.): Clarifies the exceptions to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition and acceptable documentation.
  • Instruction for Question 19 (Formerly Question(s) 21, 22, 23): Clarifies for purposes of this form, contacts to NICS include State agencies designated as points-of-contact (“or POCs”) to conduct NICS checks for the Federal Government.  Provides instructions for completing the form when a transaction was denied and later overturned.
  • Instruction for Questions 20 and 21 (Formerly EXCEPTIONS TO NICS CHECK): Clarifies that the exception includes transfers of National Firearms Act firearms to an individual who has undergone a background check during the NFA approval process. Also clarifies that a NICS check must be conducted if an NFA firearm has been approved for transfer to a trust, or to a legal entity such as a corporation, and no background check was conducted as part of the NFA approval process on the individual who will receive the firearm. Additionally clarifies that individuals who have undergone a background check during the NFA application process are listed on the approved NFA transfer form.
  • Instruction for Question(s) 24-28 (Formerly Question(s) 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30): Clarifies that these blocks must be completed with the firearms information. Also clarifies that all firearms manufactured after 1968 by Federal firearms licensees should be marked with a serial number.
  • Former Instruction for Question 32: Removed from form.
  • New Instruction for Question 32: Added to form. Provides instructions for completing the form when the transaction is to facilitate a private party transfer.
  • Former Instructions for Questions 33-35: Removed from form.

Related Resources

Related Research and Background Information

Ordering Forms

The revised form is available to either download or order.  FFLs started to receive packets of 50 forms in late December 2016.  Should you require additional forms, please contact the ATF Distribution Center by telephone at (703) 870-7526 or (703) 870-7528. Forms may also be ordered online or you may print the Form 4473 from ATF’s website and make copies as needed.  Please note that all six pages of the Form 4473 must be printed and retained as a part of your permanent records.

Contact Information

If you have additional questions regarding the revised Form 4473, please contact your local ATF office.  A listing may be found online.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Story 2: Creepy Sleepy Dopey Joey Biden Attacks Trump By Lying About Trump’s Comments Regarding Charlottesville — Joins Radical Extremist Democrat Socialists in Desperate Attempt To Save His Candidacy — A Real Abuse of Power –Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Videos

The Charlottesville Lie

President Donald Trump On Charlottesville: You Had Very Fine People, On Both Sides | CNBC

Biden: Trump ‘fanning flames of white supremacy’

President Trump tweets about Charlottesville, Va., violence

Published on Aug 12, 2017

Trump condemns Charlottesville attack (full)

Published on Aug 14, 2017
After facing two days of criticism for his response to the violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, President Trump condemned the attack in a statement from the White House.

Biden: ‘Everything the president says encourages white supremacists’

Joe Biden: President Donald Trump Fanned The Flames Of White Supremacy | The Last Word | MSNBC

Joe Biden stands by comments linking Trump to growth of white supremacy

Former Vice President Joe Biden Claims Trump’s Rhetoric Is About ‘The Abuse Of Power’ | MSNBC

Biden seeks to keep edge as 2020 Democrats flood Iowa

By James Oliphant

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-7339463/Biden-seeks-edge-2020-Democrats-flood-Iowa.html

Latest 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Polls
Friday, August 9
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination SurveyUSA Biden 33, Warren 19, Sanders 20, Harris 9, Buttigieg 8, O’Rourke 1, Booker 1, Gabbard 0, Yang 0, Klobuchar 1, Castro 0, Steyer 0, Bullock 0 Biden +13
Thursday, August 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Monmouth Biden 28, Warren 19, Harris 11, Sanders 9, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 3, Steyer 3, Booker 1, Yang 2, Gillibrand 2, Delaney 1, Castro 0, Gabbard 1 Biden +9
California Democratic Primary KGTV-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 25, Harris 17, Warren 21, Sanders 18, Buttigieg 6, Yang 1, Booker 1, Gabbard 1, O’Rourke 0, Castro 0, Klobuchar 0, Steyer 0, Williamson 0 Biden +4
North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Civitas/SurveyUSA Biden 36, Sanders 15, Warren 13, Harris 8, Buttigieg 5, O’Rourke 0, Booker 1, Yang 1, Klobuchar 0, Ryan 0, de Blasio 0, Gillibrand 0 Biden +21
Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary Franklin & Marshall Biden 28, Warren 21, Sanders 12, Harris 8, Buttigieg 6, Booker 2, O’Rourke 1, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 0 Biden +7
Wednesday, August 7
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 25, Warren 18, Sanders 13, Harris 8, Buttigieg 7, O’Rourke 2, Booker 2, Gabbard 3, Yang 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 1 Biden +7
Tuesday, August 6
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Biden 32, Warren 21, Sanders 14, Harris 7, Buttigieg 5, O’Rourke 2, Booker 2, Gabbard 1, Yang 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 0, Bullock 0 Biden +11
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Politico/Morning Consult Biden 33, Warren 15, Sanders 19, Harris 9, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 3, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Yang 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 1 Biden +14
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Biden 30, Warren 17, Sanders 12, Harris 11, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 1, Booker 2, Gabbard 1, Yang 0, Klobuchar 1, Castro 0, Steyer, Bullock 0 Biden +13
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Biden 21, Sanders 17, Warren 14, Harris 8, Buttigieg 6, Gabbard 3, Booker 1, O’Rourke 0, Steyer 1, Yang 1, Gillibrand 1, Delaney 1 Biden +4
Texas Democratic Primary DMN/Emerson Biden 28, O’Rourke 19, Sanders 16, Warren 14, Harris 5, Buttigieg 7, Castro 2, Yang 3, Gabbard 1, Booker 2, Delaney 0, Ryan 1 Biden +9
Friday, August 2
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Politico/Morning Consult Biden 32, Warren 15, Sanders 18, Harris 10, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 3, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Yang 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 0 Biden +14
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Harvard-Harris Biden 34, Warren 8, Sanders 17, Harris 9, Buttigieg 4, O’Rourke 3, Booker 2, Gabbard 0, Yang 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock Biden +17
Wednesday, July 31
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 26, Warren 20, Sanders 13, Harris 11, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 2, Booker 3, Gabbard 2, Yang 1, Klobuchar 0, Castro 2, Steyer 0, Bullock 0 Biden +6
Tuesday, July 30
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Emerson Biden 33, Warren 14, Sanders 20, Harris 11, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 4, Booker 0, Gabbard 1, Yang 2, Klobuchar 0, Castro 1, Steyer 2, Bullock 0 Biden +13
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Politico/Morning Consult Biden 33, Warren 13, Sanders 18, Harris 12, Buttigieg 5, O’Rourke 3, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Yang 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 0 Biden +15
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination The Hill/HarrisX Biden 34, Warren 12, Sanders 20, Harris 9, Buttigieg 5, O’Rourke 4, Booker 1, Gabbard 0, Yang 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 1 Biden +14
Monday, July 29
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Biden 34, Warren 15, Sanders 11, Harris 12, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 2, Booker 1, Gabbard 1, Yang 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 0, Steyer 0, Bullock 0 Biden +19
Saturday, July 27
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus Morning Consult* Biden 29, Sanders 23, Warren 12, Harris 11, Buttigieg 6, O’Rourke 3, Yang 3, Booker 3, Castro 2, Klobuchar 1, Steyer 1 Biden +6
Friday, July 26
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination FOX News Biden 33, Warren 12, Sanders 15, Harris 10, Buttigieg 5, O’Rourke 2, Booker 2, Gabbard 0, Yang 3, Klobuchar 3, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bullock 0 Biden +18

1 23 

 

Story 3: Survival of The Anti-American  Presidential Candidates of The Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) — How Not To Win Friends and Influence People — Failing Final Four: Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris — Trump Should Beat Them All — Videos

Progressives worry about the strength of the 2020 Democratic field

The Angle: Kamala’s big con

Here are the candidates who qualified for the third Democratic debate — and those who might miss out

Andrew Yang became the ninth candidate to qualify.

Javier Zarracina/Vox; Getty Images

Democrats aren’t letting just anyone onto their presidential debate stage anymore.

After two debates with lenient qualification standards that featured 20 candidates each, the DNC raised the bar for September’s third debate. The move has created some drama, as various lower-polling contenders are struggling to make the cut with less than three weeks before the final lineup is announced.

We’ll go into the fine print more below, but the gist is that candidates have to hit 2 percent in four recent polls from a specific list of organizations, and also get donations from 130,000 different people. By contrast, to get into the first debate, you had to hit 1 percent in three polls or get donations from 65,000 people — each threshold was lower, and you didn’t need to meet both of them.

Currently, nine candidateshavequalified for debate No. 3: Joe BidenBernie SandersElizabeth WarrenKamala HarrisPete ButtigiegBeto O’RourkeCory BookerAmy Klobuchar, and Andrew Yang.

Three more candidates — Julián CastroTom Steyer, and Tulsi Gabbard — have made some significant progress toward qualifying, though it’s not clear if they’ll make it. The rest of the field seems quite far away and the clock is ticking: The deadline to qualify is Wednesday, August 28.

However, candidates who narrowly fail to qualify for September’s third debate might get another chance in October. The DNC is using the same qualification rules for both events, but candidates will have an extra month or so to get more donations or show improvement in polls, as Politico’s Zach Montellaro reported.

The third debate is scheduled for September 12 and potentially also September 13, if enough candidates qualify to necessitate a two-night event. It’s co-sponsored by and will be aired on ABC and Univision.

How to qualify for the third Democratic debate

To make it onto the debate stage, a Democratic candidate has to meet both of these two thresholds.

1. The polling threshold: A candidate must hit 2 percent or more in at least four polls released between June 28 and August 28.

  • These can be either national polls or early state polls (of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina).
  • These polls must be conducted by one of these organizations: CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Associated Press, NPR, the Des Moines Register, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, the University of New Hampshire, or Winthrop University.
  • One catch is that a candidate cannot use multiple polls by the same organization covering the same geographic area. (For example, if there are two NBC national polls showing a candidate meeting the threshold, only one of them will count).

2. The donor threshold: A candidate must have received donations from 130,000 different people. Also, they must have at least 400 donors each in at least 20 different states.

The names of donors who give less than $200 don’t have to be publicly disclosed, so for the time being we’ve had to rely on the candidates’ own claims that they’ve met this donor threshold. (Eventually, they have to give corroborating information to the DNC, which will double-check.)

Javier Zarracina/Vox

Who’s qualified for the third Democratic debate?

So far, these candidates have met the polling threshold and have said they’ve met the donor threshold:

  1. Joe Biden
  2. Bernie Sanders
  3. Elizabeth Warren
  4. Kamala Harris
  5. Pete Buttigieg
  6. Beto O’Rourke
  7. Cory Booker
  8. Amy Klobuchar
  9. Andrew Yang

Currently, this list is small enough that it could mean all the candidates get to debate together on one night, rather than being split over two separate nights as was the case in both previous debates this year.

But the DNC has said that if a “large field” does end up qualifying, this third debate will again be a two-night event. They have not, however, said exactly how many qualifying candidates would necessitate a two-night debate.

So if, say, 11 or 12 candidates qualify — which seems totally plausible at the moment — it’s not yet clear whether they’d all be onstage together or whether they’d be split in two groups on separate nights.

Who hasn’t yet qualified for the third Democratic debate?

There are three candidates who have made significant progress toward qualifying but who haven’t yet sealed the deal.

  • Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro has three of four qualifying polls and says he has met the donor threshold. So he needs just one more poll to qualify.
  • Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) says she has met the donor threshold but she has just one of four qualifying polls. So she needs three more polls to qualify.
  • Billionaire Tom Steyer has three of four qualifying polls but he has not yet met the donor threshold. So he needs one more poll and a bunch more donors to quality.

Everybody else in the race faces an uphill climb to qualify, with most having zero of the necessary four polls so far and not having met the donor threshold, either. They are:

  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (has one poll)
  • Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (has one poll)
  • Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington
  • Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana
  • Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
  • Author Marianne Williamson
  • New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
  • Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland
  • Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio
  • Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts
  • Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Florida
  • Former Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania

But candidates will get another chance at qualifying for the fourth debate

There’s an interesting twist about qualifying for the fourth Democratic debate in October, though: It will actually be easier.

That’s because the qualification rules are exactly the same as for the third debate — except that there will be more time for campaigns to make it happen.

For the polling threshold in particular, the third debate requires polls released between June 28 and August 28 be used. But for the fourth debate, that window goes from that same starting point (June 28) up until two weeks before the October debate (which doesn’t yet have a specific announced date).

The gist, as Politico points out, is that any candidates who qualify for the third debate automatically make it into the fourth debate — and on top of that roster, the rest of the field will have another month to try and get the rest of what they need as well.

So what could oddly ensue is a significantly smaller field for September’s third debate that then gets a bit bigger for October’s fourth debate.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/8/20758519/democratic-debate-qualification-polls-candidates-yang-gabbard

Story 4: Nearly 700 Illegal Aliens Detained In Massive Raids In Mississippi Food Processing Plants — End Catch and Release — Videos —

 

ICE releases almost half of the 680 people arrested during Mississippi raids

Massive immigration raids at agricultural processing plants in Mississippi

News Wrap: ICE arrests 680 undocumented workers in Mississippi

Scores from Mexico, Guatemala detained in Mississippi raids

The governments of Guatemala and Mexico said on Thursday that between them, almost 300 of their citizens had been detained in the southern U.S. state of Mississippi as part of sweeping U.S. immigration operations.

U.S. immigration authorities arrested nearly 700 people at seven agricultural processing plants across the state on Wednesday in what federal officials said could be the largest worksite enforcement operation in a single state.

On Twitter, the Mexican foreign ministry said 122 Mexican nationals had been detained, of whom 34 had been released and notified of dates for hearings with migration authorities.

Guatemala’s foreign ministry said in a statement that 176 of its citizens had been arrested in the raids in Mississippi, 142 of them men and 34 women.

Separately, the Honduran foreign ministry said that two Hondurans so far had been confirmed among those detained.

U.S. President Donald Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration, especially from Central America and Mexico, one of the signature policies of his administration. (Reporting by Lizbeth Diaz; Writing by Julia Love; Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia in Tegucigalpa and Sofia Menchu in Guatemala City; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel, Sandra Maler and Tom Hogue)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-7339509/Mexico-minister-says-107-Mexicans-detained-Mississippi-operations.html

Story 5: A Confident President Trump Comments To The Big Lie Media Before Taking 10 Day Vacation — Winning The Hearts and Minds of American People With A Resonating Message — Meaningful Background Checks — Yes, Red Flags — No Videos

MARATHON TRUMP: President Trump Talks To Media Before Vacation

Story 6: Numerous Two Second or A Few Seconds Videos on Youtube For Fox Commentators Including Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, The Five, and Many More — Either YouTube is Doing This or YouTube Is Failing To Stop Whoever  Is Doing This — Videos

The Ingraham Angle 8/8/19 FULL | Laura Ingraham Fox News August 8, 2019

The Ingraham Angle 8/9/19 FULL | Laura Ingraham Fox News August 9, 2019

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1300-1304

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...