July 2011 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Interesting Observations About Our Opponents

Some people (not saying you are one of them) think that the drafters of this legislation just want to convict innocent people, etc and although I fully accept there are some warped individuals on the brady side with this goal, the overbroad and abuse friendly legislation comes from elsewhere.

It comes from the fact that these people so thoroughly trust the DAs and the cops to not screw up (forget about intentional corruption for a sec) that they see no problem with the broad discretionary/interpretive powers handed to authorities.

A guy got his guns stolen up here a few years back. He suspected a neighborhood kid. The cops dragged the kid (pre-teen) in and got a confession out of him and made sure it implied that the guns were not properly stored and allowed easy access to the kid. The cops charged the gun owner with improper storage and didn’t charge the kid for stealing them because of his age (and it turns out in order to get the “confession”). The guns turned up across town and the guy had them was linked to the robbery. The confession was a result of browbeating a pre-teen into regurgitating leading questions.

But we should trust authority, right???

Having observed folks on the other side for quite some time, I think this is correct. There are some petty and vindictive folks on the other side, but a naive faith in government, and an unshakable belief that government officials will do the right thing, are at the root of laws that grant broad authority to officials, essentially putting us in their hands. I quite often think many of our opponents would be fine with a law that says guns are illegal for anyone to possess that the Attorney General believes would be a danger to society. It’s common sense, after all. Who wants someone to have a gun that’s dangerous to society? These are not people who read Orwell, or study history in any serious way.

Another excellent observation comes from commenter jdege over at our favorite Brady Board member’s blog, where she suggested the problem with people murdering each other is a culture that is accepting of gun ownership and gun possession:

The problem isn’t “the culture”, it’s the individual who decided to pull the trigger.

You’re continued attempts to confuse, deflect, and share responsibility only makes things worse.

There’s one finger on the trigger, and one person who decided to pull it. No one else is responsible, and the decisions and behaviors of no one else is relevant.

Second Amendment advocates often hurl the word “collectivists” at our opponents. After a long time reading what they have to say, I can’t find any evidence this isn’t a completely accurate description of a large number of them. One of the things that caused me, as a gun owner and avid shooter, to get more involved with the issue is being greatly incensed at the constant attempts to make me responsible for the negligent, criminal or suicidal behavior of others. There’s something about that attitude that does not sit well with me, and I suspect the same is true for many of you.

This brings to mind the legal term corruption of blood, a concept wisely eschewed by the founders in the United States Constitution. Our opponents are strong believers in a variant of this concept of guilt. Collective guilt, collective responsibility, collective sacrifice. Surrender your rights and privileges because of the abuses of the few. Think about where that idea leads, and it doesn’t go pretty places. There might be room in this country for some gun regulations, but at long as these people are the ones driving the idea, it’s going to be opposed by people like us. There isn’t trust. There can’t be trust. Our opponents philosophical roots are vastly different than ours.

Recent Research on Suicide and Guns

It’s difficult to say exactly when this was first published, but it just hit Health Policy this past month. The conclusion is interesting:

Our empirical analysis suggest that firearms regulations which function to reduce overall gun availability have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide, while regulations that seek to prohibit high risk individuals from owning firearms have a lesser effect.

In other words, keeping “dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people,” as Brady of fond of promoting doesn’t work. The only thing that does? Regulations that make it harder for you and me, who are not dangerous, and will likely never be suicidal, from exercising our rights under the constitution.

The Diversion from Fast and Furious Continues

The usual suspects, including misdirector-in-chief Elijah Cummings, are introducing a federal gun trafficking bill today. I’m very curious to see this bill. I can almost promise there will be a way for otherwise law abiding folks to get tripped up in this and nailed with a felony. Why? These people have demonstrated time and time again to have no regard for careful drafting of legislation to avoid it.

Another Illegal Mayor

Mayor Bloomberg’s coalition just keeps showing itself to be considerably less law abiding than your average concealed carry license holder. Now the Carbon County District Attorney is charging Mayor Richard Corkery, of Coaldale, of 28 counts of possession of child pornography:

Nesquehoning police began investigating Corkery in April and say they found several pornographic images of underage boys when they searched the mayor’s computer at WLSH-AM radio.

Ah, liking the little boys I see. And, of course, Bloomberg lists him as one of his own:

When are we going to close this dangerous illegal mayor loophole? Shouldn’t Bloomberg be doing background checks on all his members? I think we need a law!

Fast and Furious a Gun Control Plot

John Richardson has a link to the smoking gun, and Katie Pavlich is reporting on this topic as well. On this, recall that our opponents called this “hyping ridiculous conspiracy theories to attack the Obama administration,” and suggesting it was something we created from whole cloth.

The emperor would appear to have no clothes.

Brass Knuckles

In some states, even if you have a license to carry concealed, you still may not lawfully carry brass knuckles. Pennsylvania is one of those states. Brass knuckles are considered prohibited offensive weapons. SayUncle has a picture of a gun that I think would make for an amusing legal case.

Exceeding Lawful Authority

It’s amazing how many progressive types don’t get the problem with the multi-long-gun reporting requirement implemented by ATF. Many of them were quick to jump on George Bush for liberally interpreting executive authority when that authority brushed up against other constitutional rights, but Obama does it, and it’s just peachy.

Gun Control in Delaware

I mentioned back in the 2008 election that Jack Markell was going to be a real problem for Delaware gun owners. The good news is that he did not get the worst of his proposed agenda, which was ending private transfers and sales in Delaware. The bad news is that he managed to get some of his agenda through, though it looks like the damage was fairly minimized.

The most questionable item was being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, but the resulting bill is relatively benign. There is no implied consent, as probable cause is required to submit to testing for BAC, though if you refuse your refusal can be used in court. That may not be constitutional, though I’m not an expert on 5th Amendment law.

My main issue here is that the penalty is way out of line from the danger. Drunk driving is far more dangerous than possessing a firearm while intoxicated, and in Delaware it takes three offenses to get to a Class G felony. The licenses suspension is also a max of 30 months. For having a gun, you lose your CDWL for five years.

Note that I have problem with criminalizing possession of a firearm while intoxicated outside the home, or handling a firearm while intoxicated anywhere. But I do have a big problem with those penalties being harsher than driving while intoxicated, which is a far more dangerous activity.

Obama’s Watergate?

For various reasons I don’t think the comparison is fair. For one, Watergate didn’t result in anyone being killed. But I also don’t think the political implications are likely to be as dire for a couple of reasons. For one, the media isn’t that interested in the story. Sure, they are willing to write about it, but no one in the main stream media is really digging. Two, we’re pretty close to an election year, and I think the GOP will be looking for embarrassment, and to make this a campaign issue. Watergate hinged on the threat of impeachment, and Nixon knew the Democratically controlled Senate had the votes for it. Trying to unsuccessfully impeach Clinton hurt the GOP, and I doubt they’ll want to repeat it. Watergate also hinged on key administration officials failing to protect the President. That is unusual, since it’s commonly accepted administration officials fall on their swords to protect the big guy if necessary.

In order to up the ante in Fast and Furious, there needs to be a criminal investigation.Â There really needs to be a special prosecutor, if this is going to go to the next level. Administration officials will be willing to lose their jobs to protect the Administration. Going to jail for it is another thing entirely.

Quick Work on New Rifle Rule

The House is acting to block the new rule, by prohibiting ATF from spending any money to implement it. While the new rule is unlawful, this would add some teeth to it, since ATF couldn’t enforce the measure without misappropriating funds.