Sebastian – Page 1466 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Understanding the Threat

I have probably mentioned before that The Belmont Club is one of my favorite blogs. Wretchard has been covering the Virginia Tech incident, which you can read here, here, here, and here. Read the comments too, because that’s often full of good material:

I know there is some debate over whether Cho’s craziness could have been fully anticipated. However, a university stands in loco parentis, in place of the parents. It is fully committed, by its own avowal, to creating a safe environment for its students.

Any parent understands that when you are hosting a group of children in your house, when you are in loco parentis one of the variables you control is the quality of the company. And when one of the kids acts in a menacing way like Cho, most parents would probably send him home. There was no need to lock Cho up, but is not reasonable to think that the University might have suspended him or expelled him for his behavior, which apparently stalking, voyeurism and setting fire to his dorm, by some accounts? After all they were willing to expel students who carried licensed guns to school, even when they could not be prosecuted; so it is established the university was perfectly willing to toss people out on their ear to create their environment of safety.

The intention may have been laudable, but they forgot one thing. The threat is the man, not the thing. The hijackers who killed 3,000 people accomplished their deed only with boxcutters. They were looking for guns, which is neither here nor there, but they were oblivious to the flaming psychopath who broadcast his existence continuously, like some dark beacon in their idyllic sea.

It may not be productive to indulge in recriminations, but surely it is reasonable to recall that in a creating any security screen, any safe environment it is the man above of all whom we must watch. Maybe they forgot that. I hope they remember it now.

Emphasis is mine. It’s still not clear yet what the impact of all this is going to be. Wretchard is a very good writer. He takes incidents and current events, and tries to put them into the broader context. You never see that in the media, and it’s great that we have bloggers who do it, and are talented at it. Read all the links. Hopefully it will keep you all busy for a while, because blogging might be a bit light today.

It’s Hard to Say Goodbye

I sold two of my collection in a private sale.Â My Romanian SKS, and a CM-11, both to my friend Jason.Â Â The CM-11 I never shoot.Â To tell the truth, I aquired it back when I first started buying guns because I thought it looked scary enough that it might eventually get banned, in which case I could cash in.Â Maybe I sold it too soon, but I could no longer justify the room it was taking up in my safe, for something I never shot.Â Jason has a full auto M-11, and the uppers on the full auto and semi-auto versions are interchangeable, so he can use it.

This is the first time I’ve sold part of my collection.Â I plan to aquire a new SKS with my C&R license.Â The CM-11 sale was just making room in my safe.Â The one complication is that the SKS is C&R eligible, and although I acquired it before licensing, I’m selling it post licensing, so I’m not sure whether I record it in my bound book.Â I have to call the ATF to find out for sure.Â I have seven days to find out.Â I’m pretty sure the answer is no, I just have to record the disposition in my personal firearms record.

Either way, my current plan is to get a Yugoslavian SKS, and a Nagant revolver.Â Later, hopefully, I can get an M1 Carbine, and M1 Garand.

No Pics

Bruce is asking blogs not to show the deranged loser’s picture.Â I’ll go one more and not even mention his name as anything other than deranged loser, deranged killer, psycho boy, mass killer, or other such unfriendly invective.

Patriots Day

Happy Patriots Day. The day when folks in Massachusetts get a day off work to celebrate having completely forgotten who they are.

Two Things To Watch For

There are two things I can see the anti-gun groups, the media, and the politicans pushing out of this.Â Â The first is another law limiting magazine capacity.Â Â The other is stricter mental health screening for gun purchasers.

Magazine Capacity Limitations

They tried this in 1994.Â Even if they removed grandfathering, there are a lot of magazines floating around out there that exceed ten rounds, and virtually all magazines exceed five.Â Magazines are currently completely unregulated.Â There is no way a law banning them will have even minimal compliance.Â Magazines exceeding the limit will continue to be common and available, even if Congress bans them.

It also doesn’t take long to change a magazine.Â As this killer must have done several times while he was systematically executing his classmates.Â Would it have really made a difference if he had needed to carry three ten round magazines rather than two fifteen round magazines?Â I doubt this would have altered the end result.Â In fact, I can’t really see any situation where magazine capacity limits would save lives.Â Magazines are just too easy to change.

More Mental Health Screening for Purchase

It’ll inevitably be proposed that gun purchasers go through more rigorous mental health screening. Â Except proposals requiring physician signoff, references, or making anyone who’s had mental health treatment a prohibited person.Â This one could be the one we have to worry about the most, because people will more easily see the relationship between the current tragedy and the proposal.Â Â But keep in mind that millions of people are treated every year my the mental health profession, and only a small fraction of them are truly dangerous.Â Ever taken anti-depressants?Â Want to be a prohibited person because you one saw a psychiatrist?Â Do you want your neighbors being consulted and asked if they think it’s OK for you to have a gun?Â I Don’t either.Â This is a massive invasion of privacy, and we can’t stand for it.Â I would also note that Canada does have these strict requirements, and so does Massachusetts. Â But it didn’t stop mass killers from committing their acts there.

You learn something new….

…every day it seems:

Feinstein may be clueless about the content of her ban. However, the picture book story isn’t about her. It’s about the drafting of the California state AW ban, after the Stockton murders.

The drafters did indeed look at a picture book (Gun Digest, I think) and just pick out guns based on appearance.

That’s why California (and copycat jurisdictions like Denver) banned the “Encom CM-55,” which doesn’t exist. The CM-55 was made by another company, but the words “Encom” and “CM-55” appeared on the same page, and so the stupid drafters thought they referred to a single gun.

It’s also how they banned the non-existent “H-93” rifle — because Gun Digest had a typo “H” instead of “HK” which the California legislature blindly copied.

I had heard that, but always figured it was just a story. They actually did go through the magazine and pick out scary looking guns? Unbelievable.

Our Albatross

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed in responding to the new calls for gun control in response to the Virginia Tech tragedy, among people both on the internet and off, it’s that most people’s perceptions of the issue are woefully uninformed. It’s shocking to me how many advocates of gun control don’t even know the most basic things about firearms. Even the queen of the gun control herself, Carolyn McCarthy, didn’t know what a barrel shroud was, even though her bill, H.R.1022, bans firearms that have them.

The basic problem we have is that a large portion of the general public, especially in more urbanized areas, have absolutely no experience or knowledge of firearms themselves. So when folks like the Brady’s and their friends in the media report that the Walther P22 is a high powered killing machine, they have no basis in knowledge that would raise doubt about the veracity of that statement. We on the gun blogosphere may giggle at the idea, but a lot of people genuinely don’t know any better.

We bear the burden of a population that’s easily mislead because it doesn’t have first hand knowledge of firearms, and doesn’t really care too much about self-defense issues, the right to keep and bear arms, target shooting, hunting, or any of the other things we talk about here. That is the core of our problem. The fact that the media is ignorant and doesn’t even try to hide their overt hostility towards guns and shooters is a big problem too, but if people were better educated on our issue, they’d know the media were ignorant and misleading.

That’s why I think the best thing we can do to help ourselves is to educate people we know, and try to at least give them a bit of familiarity, so they can identify media hysterics when they see it. Try to get someone to the range, especially someone who has never shot before. The best anecdote to the bullshit being spewed by the anti-gun crowd and their accomplices in the media is direct first hand experience with firearms. Take the opportunity to not just entertain, but to educate.

One of the things I like to do is take someone clay shooting. Aside from being a lot of fun, it introduces people to the shotgun. Later, when I take them over to the target range, I’ll let them shoot an AR-15 or an AK-47. They can see these scary looking weapons but neat holes in the paper, and fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger, just like any other self-loading gun. If you have access to a plinking range, let them shoot water jugs with it. Let them do the same with a pistol. Then let them do it with your shotgun. Most people are quickly shocked by how much damage a shotgun does to targets. That’s often a good opportunity to point out that at close ranges, the shotgun is probably the most lethal firearm ever devised by man, and yet it has common sporting uses, and very few people believe it ought to be banned. Even in largely gun-free Britain, shotguns are still lawful to own, with a proper shotgun certificate from the police. In my experience, if you can get someone to the range, they aren’t likely to adopt the idea that we ought to ban shotguns too.

We will never go back to being a society where the majority has a reasonable familiarity with firearms. Thanks to technology and laws surrounding the issue, it’s become much more complicated than it was a century ago. But it’s important to do what we can. If we can at least, each of us, make a few people understand that a .22 caliber target pistol isn’t a high powered killing machine, and realize the media is full of crap when they hear that, we’re doing ourselves a favor. Most people don’t appreciate being mislead and lied to, and when it comes to guns, they get that all the time.

What Would Have Worked?

Â According to Paul Helmke:

Itâ€™s long past time to have a serious national conversation about gun violence. Itâ€™s past time for us to agree that something is wrong when an individual with such obvious signs of instability can legally arm himself with the extraordinary firepower necessary to murder so many innocent people. Something is wrong when thirty-two people die from gun violence inflicted by others, not just at Virginia Tech on April 16, but every day in this country. Obviously, what weâ€™re doing now is not working.

A Walther P22 is extraordinary firepower?Â A Glock 19 is extraordinary firepower? Â These are common guns.Â The Glock 19 is probably the second most common police sidearm (after the Glock 17).Â It fires a 9mm cartridge, which is so powerful the military wants to go back to the .45ACP because it lacks stopping power.Â The P22 is a target pistol, firing the .22LR cartridge, the most common cartridge in the world.Â Guns the Brady’s swear up and down they don’t want to ban.

Some people donâ€™t want to have this conversation. Theyâ€™re content to repeat platitudes, make excuses, nitpick proposals, and postpone taking action. They accuse the rest of us of â€œpoliticizingâ€ the issue, while they hide behind the gun lobbyâ€™s talking points.

I don’t blame you for politicizing, as we were all doing that.Â I blame you for trying to cash in on it.

It is not â€œpoliticizingâ€ the tragedy to ask what we can do to make ourselves and our families safe from gun violence. When politicians and pundits deny that a problem exists and that is susceptible to policy revisions and cling to their ideological fenceposts instead of coming to the table with honest ideas, it is they who must stop the political posturing. They have to ask themselves how they can help keep our communities and our schools safe.

So Brady’s what is your honest idea?Â What prescription would have stopped this?Â The killer had no previous criminal record.Â Background checks did not stop him.Â A waiting period would not have stopped him, he obtained his guns a month ago.Â Virginia’s one gun a month law did not stop him.Â Virginia Tech’s prohibition of weapons on campus did not stop him.Â What do you think would have?Â It’s not honest to just declare you’re not “politicizing” and others are. Â I ask again: What gun control law do you propose would have stopped this deranged killer?

The Debate

I’ve always been impressed with the quality of the commentary over at The Volokh Conspiracy. You have a few boneheads there, for sure, but for the most part, quality arguments are made. Volokh also seems to attract some more left leaning people who don’t approve of guns, so if you want to debate anti-gun people who are more reasonable, it’s a good place to go.

Today, Eugene’s post asking what anti-gunners exactly were proposing brought out quite a bit of good debate between the two sides, which included yours truly. Check it out.

An Exercise in Law Making

SayUncle asks us what gun controls we’re willing to tolerate:

So, hereâ€™s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?

Whoever says that their position will merely consist of shall not be infringed, step to the front of the bus and exit please. Because that wonâ€™t work. We will have gun laws. As much as I admire your consistency, itâ€™s not feasible. Deal with it.

He’s right about the fact that we’re always going to have gun laws. So here’s my take:

I am willing to accept a constitutional regime that recognizes a right for civilians to keep and bear most small arms and light weapons. No right in the constitution has ever been construed to be absolute, but the right does place the burden on the state to prove that regulation is needed, and is non-infringing. Many of our federal and state gun laws would fail this test.

I am willing to accept that people convicted of crimes of violence can have, as part of their sentence, their right to keep and bear arms removed. People who are convicted of crimes can have a lot of their constitutional rights removed. We generally accept that in our legal tradition. I don’t like some of the current laws that turn one into a prohibited person, and keep you one long after you’ve demonstrated to society you’ve reformed yourself, but if you held a gun to someone’s head, and demanded money, or put your wife in the hospital, sorry, but I have no problems with not being able to have a gun as part of your sentence. I am not willing accept anything short of a conviction in this matter, and only for violent felonies.

I am willing to accept state and appropriate federal regulation of importation, manufacture and sale. This would allow background checks at point of sale, etc. I do think people ought to be permitted to purchase a firearm from a dealer in any state. I am not willing to accept waiting periods. Regulation is fine, as long as a law abiding citizen with a clean criminal record is allowed to walk into a gun store, and walk out with his purchase. I do believe people should be able to mail order guns, but federal requirements on background checks and paperwork can apply here, as well as delivery restrictions to be obeyed by common carriers (e.g., they can’t leave it on your doorstep, and you have to show you are who you say you are, by showing ID).

I am willing to accept state and local regulations on explosive ordnance such as grenades, rockets, and other ordnance that would still qualify as light weapons, provided the regulations is narrowly tailored in regards to keeping dense residential areas safe. Sorry folks, having a crate of grenades in your closet is a hazard to your community, and to anyone who tries to put out a house fire, independent of how responsible and law abiding you are as a person. State and local government can have the power to regulate this accordingly. If you have enough land, or build an acceptable armory to house your collection, I have no problem with this, but your right to bear arms doesn’t extend to putting your community, or the communities firefighters, in danger.

I am willing to accept state and appropriate federal restrictions on heavy, crew served ordnance. This could apply to some heavy machine guns, artillery, MANPADs, anti-tank rockets, etc. Ideally I would like to keep ownership of these possible if you’re willing to go through the process, have enough land, and a safe place to house and shoot, but I don’t think even 10% of the population would be willing to go that far.

I would be willing to accept most provisions of the NFA, as currently enacted, except for the Hughes Amendment. Though, I do believe regulating all but the heaviest machine guns (think 30mm cannon, not Ma Deuce) is inconsistent with my view that the constitution protects un-infringed ownership of personal arms. Ideally I would like to see assault rifles (real ones) and such treated as any other firearm, but I don’t know if even 20% of the population would be willing to go for it.

I would not accept any form of licensing as a prerequisite to gun ownership. I would accept that state governments have the power to regulate the wearing of arms, but are not permitted to license bearing of arms in general . Bearing of arms is constitutionally protected, with the states retaining the power to regulate how arms may be worn. Open carry would have to be legal in every state. And by legal, I don’t mean they can drag you in for disorderly conduct, or crap like that. I mean legal as in, you can do it, and they can’t say crap about it. I would not be willing to accept cars as being automatic concealment. I would push for not being a prohibited person as being an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

I don’t think arms just means firearms. I am not willing to accept any restrictions on keeping and bearing knives, clubs, swords, tasers, defensive sprays, stun guns, air guns, bows, slings, or other personal weapon.

So there is my answer. Don’t get me wrong, I generally think arms control is next to useless, but Uncle is correct that we’ll always have it. That’s the compromise with the rest of the population, who doesn’t necessarily see things the way I do, that I’d be willing to live with. When you boil it down, I’m willing to live with a lot of our guns laws. I want to see the Hughes Amendment gone, some of the importation restrictions of GCA 68 gone, laws prohibiting some form of arms bearing in states gone, state machine gun bans gone, Lautenberg gone, state licensing gone, “assault weapons” bans gone, and I’d like the type 3 (C&R) FFL to apply to everything. Do those, my passion for getting rid of the rest starts to trail off.